the art of artistic direction - core.ac.uk · the art of artistic direction kimberly colburn a...
TRANSCRIPT
THE ART OF ARTISTIC DIRECTION
Kimberly Colburn
A Master’s Project Presented to the Department of Arts and Administration
Of the University of Oregon In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Masters of Arts in Arts Management June, 2007
© Kimberly Colburn, 2007. All rights reserved
ii
THE ART OF ARTISTIC DIRECTION A Master’s Project
Presented to the Department of Arts and Administration Of the University of Oregon
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Arts Management
June, 2007
APPROVED BY DR. LORI HAGER DATE
ARTS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
iii
Updated: June 2007
academic vitae University of Oregon Department of Arts and Administration, Performing Arts Concentration [email protected]
education 1997-2000 University of California, Riverside B.A. Theatre, graduated cum laude Courses include: Theatre literature and history, Play Analysis, Theory of Modern Theatre, World of the Play: Brecht, Political Science: The Social Contract, Modern Political Ideologies, Anthropology of Art, Religious Myths and Rituals, Sociology, Women’s Studies 2004-2007 University of Oregon; Eugene, OR M.A. Arts Administration, Performing Arts Concentration Courses include: Art and Society, Great Books (Theatre theory), Cultural Policy, American Theatre (1920-1970), Theory of Acting, Masks, Scenic Painting, Lighting Design, Financial Management, Performing Arts Administration master’s research: The Art of Artistic Direction Examining the factors involved in creating a theatre season. A series of interviews with artistic directors combined with an in-depth analysis of programming literature. professional experience Assistant to the Artistic Director Oct. 2004-present, Lord Leebrick Theatre; Eugene, OR Read, researched and reviewed plays for possible production, assistant in directing, casting. Involvement in marketing, grant searching, writing personnel policy, redesign and implementation of website Director /Co-founder
Dec. 2002-May 2004, Full Frontal Artist Collective, San Diego, CA Produced and directed three successful multi-media shows. Directed and organized all marketing and operations General Assistant and Box Office Staff
Dec. 1997-June 2000, Theatre Facilities Unit, Riverside, CA General stagehand, including lightboard operator, running crew, costume crew, followspot operator, strike crew, light hangs/focuses. Box Office staff, selling tickets, setting up season subscriptions (Ticketmaster) teaching experience Graduate Teaching Fellow, University of Oregon, 2005-2007
• Humanities 101: The Classical period. Humanities 102: Medieval to the Renaissance periods. Humanities 103: Age of Enlightenment to the modern period. Arts Bridge Scholar, Spring 2005
• Teaching Drama and Art at Kelly Middle School (Grade 6) Curriculum: Examining Different Cultures through Masks
iv
production experience The Libbies Lighting Designer Pocket Theatre, 05/07
Trouble in Tahiti/Riders to the Sea/Hand of Bridge
Lighting Designer Opera Ensemble, 4/07
Company Asst. Lighting Design University Theatre, 11/06
The Seagull Assistant Director Lord Leebrick, 11/06
Sex Habits of American Women Director Lord Leebrick, 5/06
Assassins Assistant Director Lord Leebrick, 10/05
Two Rooms Director Pocket Theatre, 5/05
Copenhagen Assistant Director Lord Leebrick, 4/05
Valparaiso Stewardess/Chorus Sledgehammer, 6/02
The Virgin Slut Actuality Producer/Dancer Seattle Fringe, 3/01
Mullet Dancer DropOut Dance, 8/00
Baltimore Waltz Anna (lead) UCR, 6/00
Commedia dell’Arte Ruffiana UCR, 3/00
Mother Courage Various UCR, 11/99
Chenille Stems & Coco Midrib Amy (lead) Barn Theatre, 11/98
Crucible Ann Putnum UCR, 5/98
scholarships/awards
• NEA stipend recipient, National Endowment for the Arts 40th Anniversary Arts and Cultural Symposium
• Scholarship recipient, Shakespeare on Page and Stage, English Department, University of Oregon
conferences
• 31st Annual International Conference on Social Theory, Politics, and the Arts (STP&A). Served as décor co-ordinator. Eugene, Oregon: October 6-8, 2005
• Trends, Concepts, and Approaches in Arts and Cultural Management, Claremont Graduate University. Claremont, California: March 4, 2006
Paper presented: Cultural Policy in Theatre Programming • National Endowment for the Arts 40th Anniversary Arts and Cultural Symposium.
Washington, DC: May 17-19, 2006 service/affiliations
• Member, since Fall 2005: Graduate Teaching Fellowship Federation • House/Stage Manager-October 2005: En Masse performance group at DIVA, Eugene, OR • Volunteer-2004-05: Eugene Ballet, Eugene, OR • Mural Painting, March 2005: The Science Factory, Eugene, Oregon
v
KIMBERLY COLBURN TITLE: The Art of Artistic Direction ABSTRACT: My research explores the factors involved in selecting plays for a professional theatrical season for the purpose of creating a decision-making model. The factors examined include the mission statement of the organization, marketing and financial considerations, challenges to new play development, concerns about diversity, and the community context of the organization. The decision-making processes of six regional theatres are examined through personal interviews with artistic staff. Although there were some similarities between each theatre, each theatre’s decision-making process was unique. My research shows that the season planning process is determined by the needs of the theatre, the community, and the artists, as seen from the perspective of the artistic directors. KEYWORDS: artistic direction, artistic administration, theatre programming, season planning, producing, play selection
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................... 2
CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN.................................... 6
CHAPTER III: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................ 8
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 8
BACKGROUND: CULTURAL POLICY................................................................................... 9
MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................... 11
FINANCIAL INFLUENCES ................................................................................................ 13
DIVERSITY OF ETHNICITY AND GENDER .......................................................................... 16
CHALLENGES TO NEW PLAY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 22
GUIDING FORCES: MISSION STATEMENTS ...................................................................... 24
LOCAL RESOURCES, AUDIENCES AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS ................................... 25
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS .............................................................................. 29
INTRODUCTION..............................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. BACKGROUND: LORD LEEBRICK THEATRE.......................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SEATTLE PUBLIC THEATRE............................................................................................ 33
INTIMAN THEATRE ........................................................................................................ 43
ARTIST’S REPERTORY THEATRE (ART).......................................................................... 50
PROFILE THEATRE........................................................................................................ 57
A CONTEMPORARY THEATRE (ACT).............................................................................. 61
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................. 69
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 69
GUIDING FORCES: MISSION STATEMENTS AND THE ORGANIZATION.................................. 70
DIVERSITY ................................................................................................................... 74
COMMUNITY CONTEXT.................................................................................................. 77
CHALLENGES TO NEW PLAY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 80
MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................... 81
FINANCIAL INFLUENCES ................................................................................................ 85
BALANCE..................................................................................................................... 87
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 89
APPENDICES.................................................................................................. 92
RECRUITMENT LETTER ................................................................................................. 92
CONSENT FORM........................................................................................................... 93
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL/QUESTIONS ............................................................................... 95
SIMPLIFIED CHART OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES ............................................................... 96
WORKS CITED ............................................................................................... 97
2
CHAPTER I: PROBLEM STATEMENT
In this research, I will address the mechanics of creating a theatre season,
specifically the process of selecting plays to be included in the season. Programming a
theatre season involves balancing numerous factors and represents an attempt to see
into the future. The factors I will consider include the mission statement of the
organization, marketing and financial considerations, challenges to new play
development, concerns about diversity, and the community context of the organization.
The selection of plays that comprise a season instantly communicate the type and style
of a theatre organization and thus must correctly reflect the mission statement while
creating an interest for a prospective audience.
In order for the theatre as an organization to continue, it must be financially
solvent. In order to maintain financial solvency, the productions must continue to attract
both audience and artists: “Three constraints reflect the risks involved in theatrical
production today: specialization among theatres, limited rehearsal time and high rates of
unemployment among acting personnel” (Lyon, 1983, p. 86). Producing theatre is
already risky, and deciding upon what plays to produce is critical to the success of a
theatre: “Arts organizations are revenue intensive, meaning that they rely heavily on
current income and advance ticket sales to support current expenses” (Kotler and
Scheff, 1997, p. 12). Some theatres are thus only one poorly selling show away from
dire financial straits: “The desire to fulfill the organization’s mission often leads directors
to spend all available money on short-term artistic pursuits” (Kotler and Scheff, 1997, p.
12). Successful season planning is tantamount to continued operation regardless of
3
perceived artistic success. In this research I will consider factors involved in play
selection for season planning.
Creating a season by selecting the plays and deciding the order they are
performed in is primarily the responsibility of the artistic director (Cattaneo, 1997;
Langley, 1990; Volz, 2004). There is no widely accepted set of guidelines or standards
that are used to determine the plays included in a season, but it is commonly the
responsibility of the artistic director to oversee this process. Some literature assumes
that the artistic director will program based on their own artistic goals, rather than
balancing artistic vision with the economic needs of the organization. Langley (1990)
states that “the artistic director of a theatre company will impose his or her tastes upon
that company and, indeed, cannot do otherwise” (p. 186). Assassi (2005) disputes this
claim in her discussion of theatrical season play programming in France, saying that
“contrary to a widely-held opinion among performing arts professionals, theatre
managers do not build their programming solely on the basis of their own artistic
preferences and affinities” (p. 32).
Professional theatres operate within the structure of an organization, which can
become institutionalized. Institutionalization is when the theatre organization serves the
needs of the organization to first maintain itself before it can address the theatre it was
created to produce. Whitehead (2002) argues that because theatres have become
institutionalized, the factors that go into programming are not solely based on artistic
sensibilities or even the theatre’s mission statement. Instead, he states: “As the art
becomes increasingly subject to the economic needs of the institution, the institution
starts to drive the art rather than the other way around” (p. 31)
4
Theatre professionals generalize about theatre programming without elucidating
where these assertions are coming from. Palmer (2003) illustrates this by saying “it
seems like a fairly widely held belief among producers, artistic directors, and audiences
alike that producing a new work is a risky undertaking” (p. 64). It is unclear what
information has prompted this generalization and if producing a new work is risky
because it may be financially unsuccessful, difficult artistically, or require additional time
or resources.
Exploring the factors that contribute to theatre programming will help to either
confirm or disconfirm some of these opinions. Whitehead (2002) acknowledges that
unseen factors may be at work in programming, but does not clarify or postulate as to
what those factors might be. Palmer (2003) similarly makes the previous statement
about “widely held beliefs” (p. 64) in theatre production, but has no evidence or data to
back these claims up. My research will address these generalizations by asking if and
why artistic directors hold them.
My research will explore the balance between financial needs and artistic needs
in creating a theatre season, and determine if they operate separately or
“synchronistically.” Theatre organizations often operate with a dual leadership system,
with an artistic director and managing director (Kotler & Scheff, 1997; Langley, 1990;
Volz 2004). This can create the perception that artistic concerns and economic
concerns are separate. However, as Kosidowski argues. “The division between artistic
and institutional needs is not as clear-cut as we’d like to believe. And I think our theatres
should seek out a place in which these two drives operate synchronistically”
(Kosidowski, 2003, p. 85). My research explores this balance.
5
My research may contribute to assessing the needs involved in creating a theatre
season. It may or may not be possible to establish guidelines on how to plan a theatre
season, but I will attempt to determine what factors are involved in this decision-making
process. The focus is specifically on the selection of plays to be included for full
production within a season. The myriad of other programming activities, such as
workshops, readings, or educational events or classes is outside the scope of this
research.
I examine professional regional theatres that are members of Theatre
Communications Group (TCG), a theatre service organization, and are located in the
Northwest. This will focus the research on professionally oriented theatres rather than
community theatres, including Seattle Public Theatre, Intiman Theatre, Artist’s
Repertory Theatre, Profile Theatre, and A Contemporary Theatre.
My goal is to discover if it is possible to develop a decision-making model to
describe how current theatre programming occurs within the theatres involved in this
study. Research participants may not benefit directly from this research. However, by
determining what factors are used in making programming decisions, perhaps
organizations can assess where their priorities in programming currently are. The
literature suggests that a tension exists between financial concerns and artistic
aspirations, with artistic programming done from financial constraints, as opposed to
artistic goals as the sole determinant of season planning.
I further hypothesize that there may be some instances of operating on what I
have termed a “slot-based philosophy.” This is an important governing principle in
season planning, and describes the process wherein the artistic director, and others
6
contributing to season planning, have definite “slots” in season selection. For instance,
a company might want to include a Christmas play, a musical, and a play with ethnically
broad appeal within their season. Each of these “slots” then guides plays that are
considered for inclusion. A slot-based season planning philosophy saves time and effort
while offering a season that is balanced between many factors. However, this is limiting
in that it does not allow for plays that defy easy categorization or it could make audience
members or theatre artists feel that the theatre is repeating itself.
The goal of my study is to determine what factors are involved in theatre
programming decisions during the play selection process. This information may assist
organizations to analyze their own programming and inform future programming
decisions. Currently, there is very limited research in the area of theatre programming,
particularly in the play selection process. It is my hope that by asking why theatres
choose the plays they do, this might make artistic staff more aware of the way that they
choose plays in the future, or consider their own priorities and adjust their process.
CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
My research considers what factors are involved in programming a theatre
season. Additional questions that I address include: Is it possible to generalize about
what factors are most important? How do artistic directors perceive these factors? Are
they seen as positive, negative, or possibly detracting from the integrity of the art? Is it
possible to create a decision-making model?
7
My main methodological framework is critical social science. As Neuman (2003)
explains, it is “a critical process of inquiry that goes beyond surface illusions to uncover
the real structures in the material world in order to help people change conditions and
build a better world for themselves” (p. 81). My goal is to uncover the structure of the
decision-making process in play selection and season planning.
This is descriptive field research, in that, “Descriptive research focuses on ‘how’
and ‘who’ questions…describing how things are” (Neuman, 2003, p. 30). I examine how
programming occurs in six specific TCG member professional theatre organizations
including Seattle Public Theatre, Intiman, A Contemporary Theatre, Artist’s Repertory
Theatre, Profile Theatre and Lord Leebrick Theatre. Further, interviews revealed how
regional theatres do their season planning, as described by a member of their artistic
personnel Data-gathering techniques included literature review, in-depth interviewing
with questions shaped from the literature review, and analysis of documents such as the
theatre’s website and promotional materials.
Artistic personnel were chosen for the interviews because they are “charged with
crafting the vision, shaping seasons, hiring artistic personnel, and fully realizing the
artistic mission of the institution” (Volz, 2004, p. 22). In some cases, particularly in larger
institutions, an associate, dramaturge, or literary manager assists the artistic director in
season planning, as detailed Cattaneo (1997) in Dramaturgy: An Overview. I focus on
artistic directors because they are traditionally responsible for play selection.
8
CHAPTER III: LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
My literature review revealed several key factors that contribute to play selection
in theatre programming: the sociopolitical and community context of a theatre,
marketing and development of plays, diversity of ethnicity and gender in playwrights and
casting requirements, challenges in new play development, personal networks and
relationships, the mission statement of the theatre, and consideration of the expected
audience. These factors are interrelated and vary from theatre to theatre; thus, it
becomes difficult to assert which factors influence decisions more than others.
Bloom (1996) conducted a survey of TCG member theatres in existence for more
than 10 years, and asked them questions about how they selected their season; “the
desire to present a balanced season” (p. 13) was the most common response, but it
was unclear what a “balanced” season constituted. By exploring each of the previously
listed factors individually, I will examine their relationships to each other.
The artistic director(s) are the primary force in selecting the plays for the season,
rather than a more democratic voting process that some non-professional theatres
employ. Contributors to theatre programming such as artistic directors, literary
managers, and directors argue against democratic processes, saying that this leads to
unchallenging works and repetition (Wickstrom, 1999). If every person is involved, the
plays selected are those that will please the greatest number of people rather than
challenge the theatre or the audience. A large portion of the artistic director’s job is to
create a successfully balanced season, financially and artistically, rather than make
9
easy choices based in popularity and potential economic success without regard to
developing the art of theatre.
BACKGROUND: CULTURAL POLICY
We must consider the larger environmental framework in which professional
theatre organizations exist. Financial constraints have a large factor in programmatic
decision-making (Colbert, 2000; Heilbrun & Gray, 1993; London, 1988; Longoria, 1992)
and it is useful to elucidate how these theatre organizations operate. The financial
framework for most non-profit theatres in America consists of the indirect support of
non-profit organizations through tax incentives, federal granting agencies like the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and state arts agencies, and the larger political
environment. Mulcahy (2000) defines the United States as “a libertarian political culture
that is skeptical of socio-cultural policies in general, but particularly those at the national
level, preferring nonprofit cultural institutions and market allocations of cultural goods”
(p. 140). This means that non-profit professional theatres are operating in an
environment where they cannot rely on the government directly, although the
government does provided various forms of indirect support.
The tax incentives given to non-profit organizations are numerous. Both
individuals and corporations receive tax deductions from contributing to non-profits. As
a result, some money is simply given (donated) to non-profit organizations. Non-profit
organizations “generally do not pay local property taxes or federal tax or local sales tax
on income that is related to their mission” (Mulcahy, 2000, p. 151). They also receive
preferential postal rates, which is a substantial discount for communication and
10
marketing efforts. All of these contribute to the ability of a non-profit theatre to remain
financially solvent.
According to the Theatre Facts 2004 report, theatres receive about 0.9% of their
income from the federal government, and only 4.9% from state, county, or city funds
(Pesner, 2005). The American Assembly for Arts (2000) insists on recognition for all
arts, but with the limited amount of funding available, this seems like an impossible task.
The United States has no explicitly stated cultural policy, but merely a set of democratic
ideals and an implicit framework. As Mulcahy suggests, “This organizationally pluralist
system, supported by mixed funding and largely outside the public sector is the
distinguishing characteristic of the American cultural condition” (2000, p. 145). The
government has created conditions where non-profit organizations can exist and
occasionally thrive, but clearly there are no guarantees, or even significant state
subsidies.
How might this affect programming choices? Not only are theatre and the arts
subject not only to a lack of governmental support, but they must defend their
programming choices in order to obtain the stamp of approval from granting agencies,
corporations, or the NEA. The NEA itself must be reauthorized by congress periodically,
and this process is fraught with political tension. For example, during the reauthorization
processes in 1990 and 1998, some members of Congress attempted to get rid of the
NEA by cutting off its funding (Quigley, 2005). All this happened for the limited amount
of funding distributed by the NEA, which in 2000 averaged just 64 cents per year per
American taxpayer (Kammen, 2000). Organizations are constantly struggling to find
sustainability and our arts and culture are subjected to the free market.
11
In addition to the financial impact on the socio-economic conditions of America
on the play selection process, there are artistic impacts as well. Tom Key (2005),
executive artistic director of Theatrical Outfit, explains in a podcast interview that once
he has begun to compile the list of plays that he will consider, one of the factors that he
looks at is if the plays “resonate with current events.” In another podcast interview, Mira
Hirsch (2005), artistic director of Jewish Theatre of the South, says “Timing is crucial,
and sometimes a play just feels right for right now.” Some artistic directors give
preference for plays that address current issues or topics.
MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT
Marketing is also a factor in programming decisions. The world of the arts
definitely feels is not free of the influence of market forces. No text on theatre or arts
management would be complete without chapters on fundraising or marketing. Volz
(2004) cites the rise of what he calls “market-based fundraising,” where donors are
demanding a return on their “charitable investment.” These can include “contractual
agreements for advertising space, mailing list access, media acknowledgement, prime
box seats, endorsements, merchandising rights” and more (p. 110).
Fifteen years prior, Langley (1990) also warned against the dangers of
dependence on corporate sponsorship in fundraising: “Like any type of patronage,
corporate support can seduce its beneficiaries into compromising positions” (p. 407).
This can become a factor in deciding what shows to produce when taken into account
what show might be more likely to attract corporate sponsorship. “Private sponsors will
be “careful, choosing only the safest projects to fund” (Potter, 1992, p. 46) Theatre
professionals worry that this can “have undue influence on program selection—by
12
favoring ‘safe’ or ‘popular’ works over new or experimental ones” (Langley, p. 407). The
implication is that theatre professionals prefer newer or more experimental work, while
corporations prefer to sponsor shows that have a history of success in past productions.
This increases the tension between artistic needs and financial needs.
Wickstrom (1999) gives a detailed example of corporate sponsorship on
Broadway in her study of the Disney Company’s influence in theatre. She determined
that the influence of Disney led to commodification and the sanitizing of theatre in order
to be ‘family-friendly.’ While there was the notable exception of Julie Taymor’s The Lion
King, she found the rest of the Disney-produced shows to be lacking in artistic quality.
The shows themselves seemed to be promotions for other Disney products, such as
stuffed animals or clothing. This implies that the motivation for producing these shows
was to develop revenues, which demonstrates a favoring of marketing and financial
needs over artistic excellence.
Hayes and Slater (2002) advocate an audience development plan that analyzes
existing box office data in order to cater to the audiences that exist, rather than focusing
on diversifying. Pressure to deliver programs that established popularity heavily affects
the type of plays that are produced.
There is no question that marketing is a necessary component in the operation of
a successful theatre. However, as Langley (1990) explains, the danger is that artistic
directors will be forced to program works that appeal to the broadest audience. Board
members, some of whom may be corporate executives, are susceptible to basing their
decision “on the bottom line” (p. 424). He does say “producing theatre of high quality is
not antithetical to selling tickets, raising money, or satisfying all the theatre’s different
13
user groups.” He argues that artistic directors should be aware that board members are
vulnerable to making financially based decisions. This is not mutually exclusive to
producing theatre of high artistic quality, but could be a factor in the decision making
process.
FINANCIAL INFLUENCES
Fiscal contributions made to organizations are clearly important to maintaining
them. According to Theatre Facts 2004, an annual study of theatre organizations done
by American Theatre magazine, 45% of a theatre’s budget comes from contributed
sources. Smaller theatres, with budgets of less than $250,000, averaged 61%
contributed sources (Pesner, 2005). Theatres would not survive without these
contributed funds. About half of a theatre’s budget must come from contributed income
sources, and corporations and foundations have a great effect, with 15.3% of income.
Individuals account for 14.6%. Theatres receive only about 0.9% of their income from
the federal government, and only 4.9% from state, county, or city funds (Pesner, 2005).
Therefore, corporations, foundations, and individual donations are most important to a
theatre’s financial health.
Play programming is thus subject to market forces, as about half of the income is
earned, primarily through ticket sales (Pesner, 2005). Organizations are trying to get the
largest market share, and to please (or at least not offend) possible corporate sponsors
or foundations. Contributed income is about half a theatre organization’s budget. The
United States has a history of being philosophically in favor of capitalism and the ‘free
market’. Lewis (2000) shows that “left to its own devices, free market capitalism tends to
drift inexorably toward monopoly” (p. 81) Mulcahy (2000) shows that the United States
14
relies on the taste of donors, corporate, foundations and individuals in order to
determine what arts organizations receive funding. Individual choice and personal
preference are part of the market forces of our democracy. Barber (1997) states, “the
market pushes towards uniformity of taste” (p. 15). This is based on the idea of
appealing to the lowest common denominator, when appeal applies to the greatest
number of people. As there is no stated cultural policy in America, the arts and culture
are subjected to this possibility of streamlining or decreasing the available arts
experiences, as determined by market forces (otherwise known as the ‘mainstream’).
Monaghan (2003) laments the financial constraints that increase the perceived risk of
new or challenging works for theatres. Hodsoll (2002) says, “Not-for-profit organizations
include more popular fare to increase revenues and lure audiences for the full range of
their repertoires” (p. 106). There is a financial incentive for programming works that are
considered popular However, if all theatres programmed only popular works, it would be
impossible to include new development of new plays and the plays deemed “popular”
would be produced again and again.
Many artistic directors feel constrained by financial necessity: “Necessity, artistic
directors feel, often dictates vision, instead of the other way round” (London, 1988, p. 2).
In 1985, Theatre Communications Group convened over 200 representatives from
theatres across the country to discuss what was termed “artistic deficit,” defined as “the
condition that prevails when economic priorities begin to take precedence over artistic
concerns” (London, 1988, p. xi). Clearly, the theatre community saw a need to address
artistic concerns over a perceived lack of quality. This study argued that the primary
factor that affected artistic decisions was economic, in terms of time as well as money.
15
Additionally, many people working in non-profit organizations work in crisis
management mode where “Crisis management, which is the process of dealing with
emergency situations, becomes the norm, preventing strategic planning both for the
short and the long term” (Kotler and Scheff, 1997, p. 21). This crisis situation will affect
the amount of resources the artistic leadership can devote to play selection and season
planning. They might use a shortcut system, like my theory of a slot-based philosophy,
to find plays to fill the niches as quickly as they can.
Funding determines the types of programs available, regardless of artistic
integrity, accountability, or public benefit in many organizations. Another issue is that as
organizations must find corporate or foundation sponsorship, they create programs
which include plays selected for production as well as ancillary programs such as
readings, workshops, or educational programs in order to fit into funding sources (Kris
Tucker, personal communication, 2006). Since foundations and corporations supply an
average of 15.3% of a theatre’s budget, this could have an enormous effect on
programming (Pesner, 2005). Foundations and corporations could make demands on
the type of plays they would like to see produced or reject the production of particular
plays as an investor in the theatre.
Market forces, financial considerations, the availability of grant money, and the
political environment are all factors in programming decisions. Additionally the mission
of the organization, availability of resources, and artistic integrity play a role. Langley
(1990) offers some sage words of advice: “Good trustees and good fundraisers
understand that the funds must follow the art, because art that follows the funding has
16
usually lost both integrity and purpose” (p. 400). The funding should support the art, not
drive it.
DIVERSITY OF ETHNICITY AND GENDER
Consideration of diversity of ethnicity and gender in play selection affects casting
and selection of playwrights to produce. Audiences, other theatres, and funding
agencies consider what playwrights are produced or what jobs are available to minority
actors and directors. Numerous articles have been written lamenting the lack of diversity
in casts or subject matter; some of these articles also acknowledge strides in increasing
diversity (Akbar, 2004; Abarbanel, 2007; Lampley, 2003; Lustig, 1996).
At the Americans for the Arts annual convention in 2003, in a roundtable
discussion on “community cohesiveness,” participants agreed that the need for diversity
in the arts was great: “Participants questioned whether arts groups are actually being as
diverse as they need to be in structure, programming, and outreach” (p. 4). However,
participants also felt that “many groups program what they feel a community needs, not
what the community has expressed as a need or desire” (p. 4). Participants seemed to
feel that diversity should be a consideration in every season selection whether the
audiences demand it or not, but the conversation did not specifically address how
diversity should or could be programmed.
Walker (1994) subverts the notion of a mission of cultural diversity in her article,
The Dilemma of Multiculturalism in the Theatre. She determines that, in many cases,
theatres will simply include one “ethnic play” in a season to address notions of
multiculturalism without actually integrating diversity throughout the company. As a
17
result, plays viewed as ethnic are frequently marginalized and only allowed to fill the slot
of the token “ethnic play” within a season.
Appel (2004), the artistic director of Oregon Shakespeare Festival, discussed
diversity and season planning in a recent interview. Appel relies heavily on her own
taste (Appel, 2004, p. 2) and diversity is a very important factor in her decision-making
concerning play selection, cast, and directors (p. 3). For example, she says “the show
that’s doing 100% [audience capacity] is A Raisin in the Sun, so we know our audience
responds to our multicultural priority” (p. 3). OSF’s mission is “to create fresh and bold
interpretations of classic and contemporary plays in repertory, shaped by the diversity of
our American culture, using Shakespeare as our standard and inspiration”
(osfashland.org). Diversity, then, is not solely the vision of the artistic director, a stated
factor, but is also demanded by the mission statement of the company. For example,
Raisin in the Sun requires a diverse cast, and concerns issues of ethnicity specifically.
A number of studies address the under-representation of women in theatre. The
Theatre Program of the New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA) released a report
in 2003 on its three-year study assessing the status of women in theatre. The report
found that “while numbers [of women] have improved over the last 25 years, the
percentage of professional female directors and playwrights has hovered around 16-17
percent” (“Status of Women,” 2003). Women artists who start theatre companies
dedicated to producing work by women have also addressed the under-representation
of women. For example: Women’s Project (www.womensproject.com/), Red Hen
Productions (www.feministtheatre.org/), Pleiades Theatre (www.pleiadestheatreco.org/)
and Washington Women in Theatre Company (http://www.washingtonwit.org/) are just a
18
few of the theatres that dedicate themselves to producing and supporting work by
women. In addition to theatre companies, there are a few organizations that offer
support for women artists, such as Women in Theatre which is “dedicated to promoting
positive images of women and empowering theatre arts professionals through
performance, education, net-working, service and outreach in Southern California”
(http://www.nohoartsdistrict.com/womenintheatre/).
Dart (2003) goes so far as to suggest the need for quotas to include women
playwrights in the landscape of American theatre to achieve diversity. In American
Theatre magazine’s compilation of the 2005-2006 theatre season, for the first time ever,
four of the five most produced playwrights this year were women (Zappulla, 2005). The
trend did not continue. In 2006, only one woman made the top ten most produced
playwrights (http://www.tcg.org/publications/at/archives.cfm). Lynn Nottage, the only
woman and only one of two playwrights of color (the other August Wilson), was quoted
in a 2006 interview as saying “just when I am feeling optimistic about the future of the
African-American writer, I look at the theater season and see we are not present”
(Kentucky Educational Television).
Goldbard (2001) discusses the difficulty of securing funding sources when a
“smaller, culturally specific theater…suddenly finds itself in competition with a major
institution such as the Guthrie Theater, seeking a subsidy to add an African American
play to its season, to “reach out” into the black community” (p. 136). She cites an
interview where a director told her,
There are historical impediments to multicultural organizations growing. When I
ran a company, I was told I couldn’t apply for substantial grants unless our
19
operating budget was $1 million a year. The larger organizations that have that
kind of resources weren’t interested in multicultural work until they got extra
money for it. I’m glad they’re expanding and including, but will their programming
dry up when the money does? (p. 136)
Playwright Lynn Nottage addresses the issue of theatres adding multicultural work in
order to appeal to granting organizations. She explains that as an African-American
woman writer, “Theaters give you a commission by way of raising grant money for
themselves without the intention of ever producing your play” (Kentucky Educational
Television). Her plays have received many readings without ever being produced as a
full production, and she feels that her ethnicity and gender are being used to benefit an
organization that is not really interested in promoting diversity, but only in using her as
an example of diversity to appeal to funding streams.
The Brustein-Wilson Debate
At the TCG 11th annual conference in June of 1996, noted playwright August
Wilson gave a speech entitled The Ground on Which I Stand, which sparked a debate
about how racial diversity could and should look on American theatrical stages. At one
point, he specifically rebutted several remarks made by Robert Brustein, artistic director
of American Repertory Theatre from 1966-2002, which led to a public debate
moderated by Anna Deveare Smith six months later in January of 1997. This debate
illustrates two distinct views on how theatres should address diversity in their
programming and casting.
In his initial speech for TCG, Wilson disparages the lack of funding for black
theatre in America, and colorblind or non-traditional casting practices. He “argues that
20
the values of the black community are compromised if black actors, directors and
playwrights can only work within the structure of the mainstream, white-dominated
theater” (Goldberger, 1997, p. 2). Wilson argues that the work of black artists should be
supported the way that white artists have been and continue to be supported in all
regional professional theatres. Brustein claims that the work that has the highest level of
excellence should be rewarded without regard to any other criteria. Wilson criticizes
Brustein’s July of 1993 Unity from Diversity article from The New Republic, which
discussed funding agencies using multiculturalism and racial diversity as a granting
criteria: “Funding agencies have started substituting sociological criteria for aesthetic
criteria in their grant procedures, indicating that ‘elitist’ notions like quality and
excellence are no longer functional” (p. 24). Wilson responds to this: “To suggest that
funding agencies are rewarding inferior work by pursuing sociological criteria only
serves to call into question the tremendous outpouring of plays by white playwrights
who benefit from funding given to the 66 LORT theatres” (Wilson, 2001, p. 25).
After this speech, Wilson was criticized by some for what was perceived to be a
call for separatism, in stark contrast to the “liberal dream of integration” (Goldberger,
1997, p. 3) Others argued that Brustein was biased: “He refused even to acknowledge
the possibility that any sort of human foible (social habits, intellectual assumptions,
temperamental preferences) could ever affect the artistic judgment of a cultivated man
like himself” (Jefferson, 1997, p. 5). The two sides did not change significantly after the
public debate (Evans, 1997, p.1). Goldberger (1997) sums up the debate:
Mr. Wilson went on to attack Mr. Brustein, who, as a longtime critic of
multiculturalism, has often said that social goals have come to take precedence
21
over purely artistic ones in financing of the contemporary arts. Mr. Brustein, for
his part, says he views Mr. Wilson's demands as a cultural version of affirmative
action, and he fears that their acceptance would have the effect of lowering
standards, much as critics of affirmative action assert that traditional standards
are compromised by its use in admissions and hiring at universities and
corporations. To Mr. Wilson, this claim is nothing more than racism by another
name. (p. 3)
The issue comes down to what the larger funding structures should be used for in
American theatre. Is it better to continue attempting to integrate diversity into our
existing structures or to build new infrastructures dedicated to exploring notions of racial
diversity on their own terms? This debate plays out in programming choices that artistic
directors make. Discussion about diversity, multiculturalism, or inclusiveness continues
and the question remains as to whether enough or even any action to significantly
address diversity has been taken: “Even when groups try to be ‘diverse,’ oftentimes they
are merely paying lip service… there seems to be a need for, and natural aversion to,
frank dialogues about diversity and multiculturalism” (Americans for the Arts, 2003, p.
4). Notions of “diversity” are clearly difficult to categorize or implement, and in season
selection can apply to audiences or the size of the organization. In his article How to
Save the Performing Arts, Kaiser (2002) argues that we need diversity not only in our
programming, but also in the sizes of the arts organizations that exist. The theatre field
has “has lost many of its minority organizations in the past few years. Those that remain
are terribly small compared with their white counterparts” (p. 7). This includes audiences
as well: “We are heading toward a world where only white, upper-middle-class people
22
come to the theater, because only white, upper-middle-class children are being exposed
to the theater” (p. 7). The lack of organizations that make exploring minority voices their
mission has led to a corresponding lack of diversity in audiences at the larger
mainstream theatres that remain.
In my inclusion of diversity as a possible factor in season programming, I focus
on diversity of ethnicity and gender. Other exclusions include diversity of age or
differently-abled populations. At the Americans for the Arts 2003 conference, it was
noted, “oftentimes diverse outreach seems to be aimed merely at easily identified
ethnicities” (p. 4).
Diversity needs to be a part of play selection, but how to integrate
multiculturalism within the selection process can be difficult. In Bloom’s 1996 survey,
“only 7 out of 47 companies listed a multicultural focus for the plays under
consideration…multiculturalism as a specific consideration did not appear to seriously
impact the decision making process” (p.13). In this research, I seek to establish if
addressing diversity of ethnicity and gender is a factor that seriously impacts their
decision-making process of selected theatres in the Pacific Northwest.
CHALLENGES TO NEW PLAY DEVELOPMENT
The traditional “canon” of professional plays typically marginalizes non-white and
women playwrights. One of the ways to increase diversity in season programming is the
development of new plays from a range of voices. However, new plays, regardless of
the issues that they address, are at a disadvantage in getting produced. New plays are
both artistically and financially risky, and as Monaghan (2003) argues, “New plays
present a marketing challenge” (p. 81). A dramaturge is often employed to develop new
23
plays effectively (Cattaneo, 1997). Aesthetic theorist, Pavis (1993), comments “No
creator of theatre would ever really risk writing a text or constructing a performance
without taking the conditions of the public’s receptivity into account” (p. 26). Professional
theatre in the United States is meant to be produced for an audience. One of the
challenges to developing new works is the fear of negative audience reception and
associated loss of revenue. If new plays are so difficult, is it any wonder that “the most
commonly expressed concerns are that seasons are too bland” (Whitehead, 2002, p.
130). Plays that are unknown are financially risky, and it is frequently difficult to predict if
they will be successful or not.
In fact, any play perceived as “challenging” or “experimental” is often then also
seen as “risky.” Susan Trapnell, managing director of ACT in Seattle, points to the
recent success of The Pillowman, a play that discusses infanticide, as an example of
risky programming. "I think it's definitely economically perilous to do this sort of work,"
Trapnell says. "But I don't think it's impossible" (Longenbaugh 2007). However, upon
closer examination, I would argue that this was not a perilous programming choice. The
Pillowman had a very recent and successful run on Broadway with several popular
actors. The play itself received attention not only for its grotesque subject matter but
also its innovative style (Brantley 2005). For a major regional theatre to then include this
play in its next season is not risky but calculated. In the Northwest alone, ACT, Portland
Center Stage, and Berkeley Repertory Theatre are doing productions of The Pillowman
this season. There is clearly a difference, then, between programming a “risky” new play
that has been successful on Broadway and a new play that has not yet been produced.
24
Occasionally, government funding can be an important tool in producing more
challenging works. Langley (1990) illustrates this with the story of a theatre whose
mission was dedicated to anarchy yet most of their funding came from government
sources. “’We just walk into those agencies,’ explains the artistic director, ‘and say,
‘we’re here to destroy you—please fund us,’ and you see, they must—if only to prove
that they are serious about democratic principles and freedom of speech!’’ (p. 400).
However, is the theatre betraying its own principles by using government funding
sources? Each theatre must keep in mind its mission statements in deciding upon their
programs.
GUIDING FORCES: MISSION STATEMENTS
Mission statements are an important factor in considering which plays to produce. It
would be inappropriate for a company whose mission dedicates them to Shakespeare
to produce a season full of avant-garde plays. Voss and Voss (2000) put it simply,
“managers are expected to embrace the organization’s mission and values” (p. 62). The
mission is the core of an organization and affects every part of it. Key (2005) describes
the season selection process as “an implementation of our mission statement”
(Podcast). Mission statements guide the theatre’s season selection process by focusing
considerations of genre, style, scope, or themes. Mira Hirsch (2005), artistic director of
Jewish Theatre of the South, selects plays based on the theatre’s mission statement:
"the plays selected for a theatre's season are largely what gives a theatre its identity.
Our play selections are largely guided by our theatre's mission" (Podcast). The New
American Shakespeare Tavern’s first play selection criterion is Shakespearian
authorship, as determined by their mission statement (Meierhofer 2006).
25
LOCAL RESOURCES, AUDIENCES AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Both patrons to the theatre and the artists who work in it are clearly a factor in
the season selection process. In Bloom’s 1996 survey of theatres, “general audience
appeal,” “specific audience or community appeal” and “casting opportunities for
company or specific actors” (p.13) were frequently cited factors. She recommends that
when programming a season, theatres should “keep the needs and wishes of your
producing team and your core and target audience a high priority when selecting plays”
(p. 14). Kosidowski (2003) posits that the primary concern in the creation of theatre is
the audience: “If the mission of theatre is indeed to bridge the fissure between observer
and observed, or at least to create a meaningful, if illusory, connection between the two,
isn’t the audience the locus of our energy?” (p. 83).
Artistic directors must also consider their local resources, which include their
local talent pool of actors, directors, and designers. Appel (2004) says “I’ll sometimes
choose a play specifically for an actor in the company” (p. 3). Sometimes she will
choose a specific play at the behest of a director she wants to work with. Booth (2006)
says that the availability of local talent is always a consideration. These personal
relationships between the artistic director and theatre community have an influence on
programming decisions.
The artistic director of Theatre Hopkins, Suzanne Pratt, describes how she
selects plays: she “attempts to balance out each season with a comedy, a classic, a
drama and a popular piece, each chosen for the tastes of the audience she knows so
well” (Rienzi 2002). Due to audience popularity, she also includes a Shaw play every
other season. “In selecting a play, Pratt says her guiding principle is finding a work of
26
‘strong, dramatic literature’” and that “there will never be a play up there that has not
already proved itself to be an uncommonly impressive piece of dramatic literature”
(Rienzi 2002). Pratt organized play selection to be responsive to her audience through
selecting plays that are well established. She is unlikely to include many new plays,
plays by minorities, or experimental works due to these constraints.
By the very nature of theatre, the question of creation involves the audience.
While some theatre theorists or practitioners dismiss the audience’s involvement, in the
reality of a non-profit organization, the audience must be considered. “For us, the
question of ‘Who’s there?’ is tied not only to the nature of the drama, but is inextricably
linked to box office numbers, marketing matters, and the unsavory, but necessary,
business of competing for consumer leisure time” (Kosidowski, 2003, p. 83). Regardless
of how a season is evaluated artistically, the box office receipts, surveys, and critical or
informal responses all play a part in the overall evaluation of the success of a
production, and the audience is at the helm of those factors.
Kosidowski (2003) suggests that artistic needs and financial or institutional
needs are not opposed to one another. He maintains that regional theatres should
behave regionally, responding to their own communities rather than prioritizing the
needs of the theatre professional or reacting to national trends. “The division between
artistic and institutional needs is not as clear-cut as we’d like to believe. And I think our
theatres should seek out a place in which these two drives operate synchronistically—
creating great theatre that a community will want to see” (p. 85). This means that if the
audience is a factor in the play selection process, it is not necessarily an artistic or
financial concern, but comes from a desire to create, respond, or maintain a community.
27
This contradicts other literature that posits economic and artistic concerns as opposing
forces.
CONCLUSIONS
The sociopolitical and community context of a theatre, marketing and
development of plays, diversity of ethnicity and gender, challenges in new play
development, personal networks and relationships, the mission statement of the theatre,
and consideration of the expected audience are criteria for play selection at some point
in the decision-making process, though their weights may vary. The mission statement
is the foundation for selection criteria. Similarly, each theatre’s core audience and local
artists will have an effect on the season selection process that will be different for each
theatre, depending upon the theatre’s size, scope, and geographic location.
While financial issues clearly play a role in the overall health of the theatre as an
organization, it is not clear how much of an effect this has on season planning other
than in the amount of new work that is produced. Financial concerns restrict the amount
of new or newer work that is considered (Longenbaugh 2007, Monaghan 2003,
Whitehead 2002) or cause the inclusion of another play that will be cheaper to produce
in order to balance it out (Booth 2006). Marketing considerations are similar in that they
limit work seen as “risky” in that it is relatively unknown, untested, or perceived as
challenging to audiences. It is difficult to ascertain if financial considerations play a role
implicitly or explicitly. It is possible that they play a role in determining what plays are
read for the possibility of inclusion, but that may not be recognized by the artistic staff.
For example, if the organization has very little resources available for play research, it is
more likely that the artistic director(s) will choose from the plays that they are already
28
familiar with. In this case, they may or may not recognize that it is financial reasons
limiting their selection process.
There is some support for my claim that a slot-based philosophy is sometimes
employed. Hirsch (2005) says that she “considers a variety of tones. One show will be a
musical or comedy, another will be more dramatic, and a third that will be somewhere in
between” and that she likes to include “at least one title that audiences are familiar
with.” Each of these generalizations is a slot that is then filled by a play that meets those
requirements. Meierhofer (2006) says that their theatre schedules a show they know
they can sell out, a well-known, popular play, in the January timeslot, because that is
the most difficult time of the year to attract an audience. Pratt does this as well, with “a
comedy, a classic, a drama and a popular piece” (Rienzi 2002). This slot-based
philosophy is likely not universally employed, but could be a guiding force in the play
selection process.
Balance within a season is frequently cited as a desirable quality, but exactly
what the balance consists of remains elusive. “Appel explained the factors she takes
into account when selecting the season: balance, theatricality and a variety of
messages, situations, periods and looks” (OSF 2005, p.3). In Bloom’s 1996 survey, “the
desire to present a balanced season” (p. 13) was cited more frequently than any other
criteria in the play selection process. Booth (2006) describes how balance is a matter
between multiple factors. "In one slot, you decide the mission must be served, and
decide take a financial risk…you balance that with a more conservative work in another
slot." While one show will use more resources, it will be more artistically fulfilling and
appropriate to the theatre’s mission, while the other show has a proven track record of
29
success but may be less artistically exciting or relevant to the theatre’s mission.
Kosidowski echoes this concern that the concept of balance is less of a negotiation and
more of a trade-off: “important artistic decisions about programming are made by a sort
of bargaining-table bean counting: allow us to do this play (challenging, dark, unfamiliar)
and we will reward you with that play (comedy, chestnut, Broadway hit)” (p. 85). Based
on the literature, balance is generally shown to be a consideration of all of these factors,
subject to the individual needs and experiences of each theatre.
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS
I interviewed artistic personnel from theatres in Seattle and Portland, including
Seattle Public Theatre, Intiman, Artist’s Repertory Theatre, Profile Theatre, and A
Contemporary Theatre. I conducted all of these interviews in person. Interview
questions were organized by categories based on what the literature revealed, including
the sociopolitical and community context of a theatre, marketing and development of
plays, diversity of ethnicity and gender, challenges in new play development, personal
networks and relationships, the mission statement of the theatre, and considerations of
the audience. Additionally, I asked participants to describe their decision making
process and identify people involved in the season planning process. I specifically
asked how the organization’s board was involved, and how a season’s success is
evaluated (see Appendix C for examples of questions).
In this chapter, all quotes are from these interviews unless otherwise identified.
All of the documents that I looked at are publicly available and include their websites,
promotional materials, information from TCG, and tax forms.
30
INTRODUCTION
Lord Leebrick Theatre in Eugene, Oregon is currently in its 15th season. They are
a small organization, with two full time staff members and two part time staff members
and a budget of about 200,000 dollars (www.tcg.tool/profiles).
The Lord Leebrick Theatre is a new TCG member theatre, having joined in 2006.
While I did not formally interview Craig Willis, the artistic director, I was involved in the
season-planning process as an intern during the 2004-2005 season.
My job as an intern consisted primarily of reading scripts that Willis was
considering and evaluating them. I would prepare a written summary. This included a
synopsis of the play, the casting needs of the play, the type of set, what other theatres
had produced the play, quotations from major reviews (or a general impression if the
reviews were primarily good or bad), and finally, my opinion of the play.
My assessment included not only my personal reaction to the play, but also
whether I felt the play fit within the type of plays that Lord Leebrick produces typically
somewhat edgier, contemporary fare. This is determined in part by their mission
statement, which is “dedicated to producing vibrant and provocative theatre”
(www.lordleebrick.com). Several restrictions were placed on play selections as a result
of the talent pool available, which had (and continues to have) a lack of racial diversity
and several age ranges that are difficult to cast, particularly for women. Because the
Lord Leebrick is a small venue, the plays also needed to have a smaller cast size. It is
difficult to have a large cast because the stage and the backstage area are small; both
get crowded quickly.
31
As an intern, I did do some research looking for plays, particularly plays by
women. This was at the behest of the General Manager, Rachel Steck, who noted that
during the 05-06 season, there were very few women represented as playwrights or
actors.
After gathering all of this information, Willis created a shorter list of plays that he
wanted to include. We discussed how the plays worked together, and the need to have
both lighter comedies and darker, edgier plays. Willis explained that he wanted to have
a balance between comedies and dramas, as they each draw slightly different
audiences. Several plays were set by virtue of being plays that Willis wanted to direct,
or that another director wanted to do. Finally, once he had the season in mind, he
presented it to the board, although they did make some suggestions during the process
as well.
The factors that were most important in season planning were the mission
statement of the theatre, whether Willis thought it was a good play worth doing, and the
availability of local resources in the form of actors and production staff. Other factors
considered were the diversity of the playwrights in terms of sex, the need for plays that
did not require diversity within the casts, and the demands of the play in terms of set
requirements and cast size. While the board did play a part in contributing to ideas for
plays, they were not a large factor in the decision-making process. Financial
considerations came into play with discussions of the resources that would need to be
allocated to a play based on its size of cast or set, but there were not conversations that
specifically discussed whether we thought the play would make money. In my
estimation, it was assumed that if the play itself was a good play that met the criteria of
32
the mission statement and seemed like it would appeal to our audiences, it could be
financially successful.
During the 2005-2007 seasons, I was not formally an intern with the theatre,
although I did (and continue to have) an ongoing relationship with them, serving as a
director, assistant director, gala co-coordinator, or website designer. This season’s
planning process appeared to work similarly to the previous season. Several plays that
were on the short list from the year before but had not been selected were again being
considered.
One thing that was somewhat different from the previous year was the high
amount of pre-casting that was done. Due to casting difficulties, particularly for the last
play of the season, Willis had lined up the lead roles for several of the plays in advance.
The pool of good actors in Eugene is small enough that theatres are often competing for
their time. This did not necessarily change the pool of plays that were considered, but
could confirm the play’s place within the season. For example, he wanted to schedule
Mother Courage, but he did not want to announce it as part of the season until he had
cast the title role with an actress that could handle it.
Again, the artistic considerations were primary. Financial considerations were
peripheral, pertaining to a need for smaller production budgets. I did note that the
success of other new plays, mostly on Broadway or off-Broadway, was influential in the
sense that those plays might be read or seen to see if they might work for Lord
Leebrick. Their financial success elsewhere simply increased their profile for
consideration. For example, one of the plays considered for this season was The
Pillowman, which had a small cast and excellent critical and audience response on
33
Broadway. In the end, Lord Leebrick decided not to do the play, in part because they
had committed to doing Frozen. The two plays both deal with children being murdered,
so Lord Leebrick felt that this would make the overall season too dark in subject matter.
The factors that went into the decision making process were: the availability of
local talent, the play’s themes being consistent with the mission statement of the
theatre, the balance between plays in terms of being challenging (thematic weight or
complexity), the play’s past production history, set or technical requirements, and finally,
if the play was deemed to have merit.
What I observe about Willis’s process that is noteworthy here is his informal
polling of his constituents. He often asks board members, actors, directors, other
theatre professionals, and even regular audience members for their opinions on certain
plays or gets their response to performances. While it does not appear that this informal
questioning guides his process of play selection in a primary way, this network serves to
inform his choices and hopefully predict how a play will be received. Additionally, Craig
travels often and sees plays performed at other theatres, primarily in New York, Seattle,
and to a lesser extent, Portland. Nause from Artist’s Repertory Theatre and the artistic
staff at Intiman also relies heavily on these networks of constituents and seeing theatre
in other cities.
SEATTLE PUBLIC THEATRE
Organization Profile
Seattle Public Theatre is a small theatre located steps from Greenlake in a
residential neighborhood of Seattle. They website states:
34
Founded in 1988, Seattle Public Theater was originally a small company that
primarily toured plays in local Seattle public schools and worked with adult and
at-risk youth populations to create socially conscious theater. In 2000, Seattle
Public was chosen by the City of Seattle in a competitive bidding process to be
the resident theater company at the historic Bathhouse
(www.seattlepublictheatre.org).
The staff is comprised of six people, including the artistic director, associate artistic
director, managing director, technical director, a marketing person and a box office
person. Their board is comprised of seven people, and their annual budget is
approximately $400,000 (www.tcg.org/tools/profiles). They are a relatively young and
small theatre when compared to the other theatres in this study. Because they are less
established and working with a smaller budget, sustainability is of a greater concern.
Before the interview, I went to see their current production, Tom Stoppard’s
Travesties. The theatre is in an idyllic setting, nestled in the corner of a park overlooking
a lake. The building seems dwarfed by the expanse of grass, trees and water
surrounding it. It is easy to forget that you are in Seattle, minutes from skyscrapers and
downtown. It reminds me of a fairy tale, as though this was the house of Snow White or
Little Red Riding Hood.
The theatre is equally diminutive, making use of every available nook and
cranny. There is no real lobby to speak of, merely a hallway stuffed with a ticket booth
and a coffee cart. The theatre is certainly intimate; no seat is more than a few rows of
packed-in seats from the stage. The seats ring the stage on three sides, and the set is
large; it is difficult to tell where the acting space leaves off and where the audience
35
begins. The programs are nice and glossy. This lends an air of professionalism to the
small space.
As the production began, I immediately noticed their lighting equipment, which
includes some moving lights. Again, I was struck by the feeling of intimacy often found
in small, community theatre contrasted with equipment more often found in larger, more
professional theatres. I felt similarly about the production as a whole. While I did enjoy
myself, I could not help but notice that some performances were more uneven then
others, or that at times the pacing of the production dragged. The audience was
engaged, laughing and watching intently despite the three hour running time. Overall,
just in that one production, it seemed like a place that served its community well, a
place that would make someone feel comfortable whether you were a theatre veteran or
neophyte. It wasn’t as polished as the slick programs or moving lights might lead one to
believe, but seemed like a good middle area between a non-professional stage and the
imposing professional theatres.
Mission
I interviewed Carol Roscoe, who has been the associate artistic director at
Seattle Public for the last two years. Our interview took place in a coffee shop across
the lake from the theatre, as the shared office space was too small and noisy. An
interesting part of our interview was about refining the mission statement of Seattle
Public, which at the time was very broad. I asked her how this broad mission statement
had an effect on play selection, as it did not have any specificity. She responded by
saying “the organization is re-finding itself right now.” She discussed how she ( the
associate artistic director), the artistic director, and the managing director had been
36
having conversations about what the identity of the organization is and the need to
begin talking with the board about making the mission statement more specific. “In a
way it [the mission statement] does [determine play selection], but only in terms of the
conversations the staff has had.” The organization has since published a much more
detailed mission statement on their website (http://www.seattlepublictheater.org/). It
reads, in part:
We act out of a belief that building a strong arts event, program, or organization
is inextricably connected to building a strong neighborhood and city…
Seattle Public Theater is proud to steward the Bathhouse. The intimacy of the
space combined with the immediacy of our presence in a public park is our
mandate to involve audiences and provide ownership while maintaining a high
quality of professional work…Seattle Public is committed to: plays with strong
rhythm, character, and juicy text; plays that tell stories that allow us to feel more
deeply, to reflect on ourselves and community; plays that challenge our
expectations and allow us to dream; plays that leave us talking in the parking lot.
(www.seattlepublictheatre.org)
This mission statement is clearly much more specific in terms of determining the style
and types of plays that will be produced there, and specifically names maintaining their
location at the intimate Bathhouse Theatre. During the interview, Roscoe said that what
makes their theatre unique is intimacy and community: “That’s what we’re trying to
focus on, that sense of intimacy and community that comes from being 20 feet
away…the audience can never hide, they’re never in black…they’re not fully lit, but at
bigger houses, you become invisible like in a movie, with that sense of isolation.” Their
37
new mission statement reflects this desire to connect the intimacy of the space with the
feeling of a shared experience and provides a much clearer guide to play selection in
their planning process, and as a result is a larger, more important factor in the season
selection process.
The board of the organization was involved in refining the mission, but the
process of the refinement seemed driven by the staff: “with that really general mission
statement, the artistic director, managing director and I sat down to have a conversation
about—what is it that we do? What are these plays that work for our audience?” After
having this conversation, they then took their findings “to the board as a discussion of:
this is what we have found our identity to be, let’s look at the mission and see if we can’t
make that more specific and reflect that.” The board does not play a role in the season
selection process, however. According to Roscoe, the board has “set the mission for the
organization and then have hired us to see that mission fulfilled.”
Role of the Audience
Roscoe asserts that the relationship between the performers and the audience
has a large part in the season planning process. Roscoe spoke of the role of the
audience extensively, from contemplating “what will be fun for our audience” to their
recent realization that their audiences would like to see more of the artistic director and
associate artistic director onstage. Thus, reading plays for inclusion in the season reflect
this concern:
We look through the plays with the question of—will this be interesting to our
audience? […] We believe that we can interest our audience with these shows,
38
and we believe we can sell that to them. Hopefully then other people will then be
coming in as well.
For Roscoe, the audience is composed primarily of regular attendees. She believes that
by appealing to their returning audience, they can also attract new audience members.
The audience impacts their marketing plan and their programming. Rather than
thinking of a play in terms of how they could sell it, Seattle Public looks at the appeal
that it would have to their perceived audience. They refined their mission statement
based on their explorations of who the audience is and which plays have been
appealing to them.
The mission statement and the audience are clearly the primary factors of
consideration for play season selection at Seattle Public. When I asked what the most
difficult thing about season programming was, she answered: “Taking your ego out of it.
Keeping the focus on the mission and the audience, and the sustainability of your
theatre.” The third part of her statement addresses the financial considerations that
affect their decision making process.
Financial Concerns
The overall financial situation of the organization affects the play selection
process. Roscoe made reference to a quotation she once heard: “all artistic decisions
are financial ones and all financial decisions are artistic ones.” She further explained
that the season is budgeted as a whole, and the needs of each show must be balanced.
If they wanted to do a large-cast show, they must balance it with one or two smaller-cast
shows. The budgets that govern each show are in flux, the organization has moved
from a system of dividing the season budget per show, where each show has the same
39
budget, to a process of addressing the needs of each show to determine their
proportion of the season budget. In this way, they can consider plays with larger
technical or personnel demands as long as they balance that with a show that could be
done with a smaller budget. This increases the number of plays that they can consider
for possible inclusion in their season.
Diversity
When asked if the ethnicity and or gender of the playwright or actors in a piece
plays a role, Roscoe responded: “Not really.” Instead, she said they look at the season
as a whole and ask if the voices, perspectives, and characters are offering diversity not
just of ethnicity or gender, but also of age or viewpoint: “If we do a whole bunch of
shows that are about middle-aged guys, regardless of the race, after a whole season of
that, we’re going to be bored. We want to mix it up; we want to find the diversity within
the season.” Additionally, she acknowledges that Seattle is “very homogeneous” and
that it is “really hard to cast and maintain diversity,” but she and the artistic director
select the plays that interest them and trust they will find people to fill the roles. So far,
they have been successful. “Casting those roles can be really challenging in Seattle, but
we do try to make it more interesting, because we’re more interested in that.” They are
primarily concerned with plays that appeal to them, that they believe are good plays.
Secondarily, they might address ethnicity or gender if the season as a whole appears to
favor a particular type of voice or viewpoint.
40
New Work
While Roscoe is interested in producing new work, she said that the financial
challenges are too great at this time. “We have wanted to do something for a long time,
some kind of reading or something, but it comes down to: Can we support it? Is it
sustainable? And at the moment, with the size of our theatre, it isn’t.” The increased
resources that producing a new play demands (Cattaneo, 1997; Whitehead, 2002)
preclude Seattle Public’s ability to produce one at this time, although they hope to be
able to commit to new work in the future.
“Sustainability” of the theatre is still secondary to the primary concerns of the
mission and the audience for Seattle Public. However, developing the mission to reflect
who the theatre is, based in part on who the audience is already, will presumably
improve the sustainability of the theatre by appealing to their current audience base.
They are “looking through the lens of who is this theatre and what are we producing and
[asking] how we make that sustainable.” As theatre artists, they are not solely imposing
their artistic desires, but responding to the audience that exists.
Slot-based Season Programming
After reviewing the literature, I theorized that balancing the various factors
involved might lead to establishing categories, or slots, to guide the decision making
process. In this way, artistic personnel might have a system to navigate and designate
certain plays as fulfilling a particular slot or demand for inclusion in the season.
In terms of the possibility of a slot-based philosophy guiding their play selection
process, Roscoe gave some indication that this is partially accurate. Seattle Public has
developed a following for two different holiday pieces for their December slot. One is
41
family-oriented and is directly related to their education programs, and the other appeals
to young single people or couples married without children. For their opening slot, “that
first show really wants to be an invitation,” and they have found that plays that end with
a more hopeful note do better financially. It can be “dramatic and poignant”, but they do
better when they are more relationship-oriented or funny rather than emotional. Their
February slot, when the Seattle weather at its worst, is the hardest to fill. “What we find
works is to do a really funny play, so that’s what we look for. The more it is a flat out
comedy, the more it tends to be successful in that slot.” In these examples, the slots
may not determine the plays that are considered, but they do determine which plays go
where and might give the advantage to one play over another if it fits better in that
described slot.
Balance
Roscoe addressed balance both overtly and implicitly. There is a financial
balance that happens between each show. Implicitly, the slots are working to balance
where the season moves in terms of its basic appeal, whether it is more emotional or
lighter and funnier. She spoke of the season planning process as a whole as: “a
balance of looking at what worked and what didn’t work in the last season, where we
feel we are as artists, where we feel our audience is as participants, and the plays that
we have.” The notion of balance is in terms of all of the factors that come into play for
Seattle Public during the entirety of the play selection process.
42
References and Guiding Principles
Roscoe says that she does not consult many reference materials as part of her
decision-making. Sometimes she will “read the books that inspired me in the first place
to do what I’m doing.” While she has seen a few books that address programming, she
does not use them because while they “can be useful, the answer is never there.
There’s no how-to [guide].” Because of her constant return to the needs of the
audience, which are specific to that part of the Seattle community, a general
programming guide would likely not be helpful anyway.
What struck me most about Roscoe was her commitment to Seattle Public. From
subduing her own demands for which play she directs to her constant reference back to
the community that Seattle Public serves, she is, in her own words, “taking her ego out”
of the equation.
I’ve signed on to this company to serve that theatre and that mission, which itself
is a not for profit, and therefore a public trust. We’re serving the public, so I’ve
signed on to be a public servant. It can’t be about what I want, it has to be about
if I am fulfilling this public trust.
This notion of service aligns with Kosidowski’s idea that regional theatre should serve
the community it operates in and challenges Whitehead’s claim that serving the
institutional needs of the theatre means a sacrifice of artistic considerations. Instead,
Roscoe represents a different mandate, that of service to her audience (Kosidowski,
2003, p.84).
Sacrifices that must be made to continually develop their community and serve
their audience. For Roscoe, they are personal attachments to projects when she sees
43
that the theatre will be better served in a different way. She told me a story about a
former professor whose metaphor guides her both as a director and an artistic director.
“What you have to learn how to do, is like Medea, you have to kill your children. You’ve
got to take the things that are more precious to you and get rid of them. Get rid of your
ego.” As a theatre artist, recognize the larger goal and remove your own self-interest
from the process.
INTIMAN THEATRE
Organizational Profile
Intiman is currently celebrating its 35th season, making it one of the oldest
theatres I studied. They are located in the Northwest corner of Seattle Center, two doors
down from Seattle Repertory Theatre. The organization is large, with 115 staff members
listed on their website (www.intiman.com), a budget of approximately five million dollars
and a supporting fundraising organization called the Intiman Theatre Foundation
(www.guidestar.org). Intiman is a member of the League of Resident Theatres (LORT).
They have agreed to operate under the contracts agreed upon by the various theatrical
unions and LORT, and are designated as class C, indicating weekly box office receipts
between $45,000.00 and $69,999.99. They are a much larger organization than Seattle
Public Theatre and are much more established. Their mission statement is:
INTIMAN Theatre produces engaging dramatic work that celebrates the intimate
relationship among artist, audience and language and, through the exploration of
enduring themes, illuminates the shared human experience of our diverse
community (www.intiman.com/about).
44
The name “Intiman” is Swedish for intimate, and according to their website,
Intiman emphasizes “a close relationship between artist and audience.” The theatre is
less intimate than their name might suggest, at 446 seats, although no seat is more
than 50 feet from the stage. To get into the building, you enter a beautiful enclosed
courtyard that immediately serves to separate you from the bustling Seattle Center just
outside. The lobby seems both small and large, because while the floor space is not
huge, the ceiling rises several stories. The lobby has multiple standing screens like
room dividers, covered with interesting information about the play and the playwright.
I attended their production of Thornton Wilder’s The Skin of Our Teeth on May 1,
2007. The theatre felt large to me, and for me, the set actually emphasized the distance
between the audience and the actors, despite the fact that I was sitting in the third row.
The set for the first act was intriguing, a floating platform with a few doors leading to
staircases down to the stage, surrounded by strips of wild grasses. It was very
abstracted, appropriate for a play where the first act takes place simultaneously in
suburban New Jersey and the Ice Age. A woolly mammoth, reminiscent of Sesame
Street’s Snuffleupagus shuffled in and even, impressively, climbed the stairs. A play
written in a post-modern style before the post-modern existed, I was soon disinterested
in the sappy subtext, emphasized here by the Greek muses softly singing underneath a
recitation of the Bible as the act comes to a close. I did like the main character, which
was played by a deaf actor signing his text as another actor shadowed him and spoke
his lines but this was not enough to overcome a text that I was not compelled by.
45
Balancing Against Anchor Pieces
I interviewed Kate Godman, an artistic associate who has worked in casting and
artistic relations for the last seven years, and has been with Intiman for nine years. She
described their play selection process. It begins, she said, with two or three “anchor”
pieces, pieces that Bart Sherr, the artistic director, based on his directing interests. After
he selects those plays, the artistic personnel begin to discuss the plays that would
balance them in both financial requirements and thematic content. Staff is included in
making suggestions, including associate artists, the managing director, and the director
of communications. Intiman used to have a literary manager, but due downsizing they
no longer have one. This means that while they accept new work from agents, it is often
a long time before a script is read and “the chances of those submissions making it into
the final season are pretty remote.” The board does not approve the season selection,
but Godman describes the relationship between the board, managing director and
artistic director as close. Because of this, the board is kept apprised of the planning
process and it is unlikely that they would have a problem with the final selection.
Currently Intiman is in the fourth year of a five-year play series called the
“American Cycle,” which features “ambitious, large-scale productions of plays and
adaptations of classic literature” meant to “advocate for literacy,” “encourage an
informed citizenry,” and promote an “inclusive conversation about American values and
our national heritage” (www.intiman.org/tac/goalspartners.html). The American Cycle
has included Our Town, Grapes of Wrath, Native Son and this season’s To Kill a
Mockingbird. The creation and implementation of this program has meant that one of
the productions of Intiman’s season is already decided, and becomes part of what
46
Godman describes as their “anchor” pieces, while other plays are selected in
relationship to this pre-selected play.
Mission
The mission statement plays a smaller role in Intiman’s selection process than at
other theatres I contacted. Godman asserts that while their mission statement drives
their selection of “work that speaks to the community, that has some ambition, that is
exciting and vibrant,” ultimately “that’s all a matter of taste or preference. You could look
at a play and one person would say it fits [the mission statement] and another might say
it doesn’t.” Godman does not find the mission statement very restrictive, because their
mission to produce ambitious work that speaks to the community ensures that the plays
they are interested in producing will fit within that mission.
Marketing
Marketing is also not a large factor. While Godman admits that sales are
something that the artistic director might think of, they do not drive the play selection
process. In the past, when they have programmed “safer” plays to sell more tickets, the
audience has been “irritated,” says Godman “because they feel like they’re being
pandered to, or they expect more. Which is great, about our audience, that they’re
demanding and have an intellectual rigor, and they don’t appreciate the fluff.” Godman
defines “safer” pieces as those considered by the theatre community to be the “more
conservative programming choice,” such as comedies like The Mystery of Irma Vep or
Round Thirds.
47
Diversity
Godman was the only person at any theatre I interviewed that unequivocally said
Intiman considers ethnicity and gender in their programming choices: “Part of our
mission is the community pillar, and part of that is making sure that the voices we hear
on the stage and the points of view that are represented are as diverse as they can be.”
When asked about the difficulty in casting diversity, Godman admitted that casting
ethnicity can occasionally hinder a play’s selection for inclusion, but points out that this
could be true of a particular specialized talent, such as singing, as well.
Balance instead of a Slot-based Philosophy
As at several of the theatres, the timing of each play determines where different
plays will fit best. Godman explains “we want the season opener to make a big bang,
we want certain shows to fall during the school year, so they can get the matinees in,
the schools in.” Intiman’s extends through the summer, which is unusual in Seattle.
“You have to be careful what you program in those two summer slots… the chances of
them coming in for a deep, wrestling piece like Beckett is maybe not going to be the
best fit.” The discussion of slots is limited to which play fits best in each time slot.
Intiman does not use these time slots to determine what types of plays they
consider, they use the time slots to determine which order the plays they have already
selected should be presented in. In fact, Godman believes that Sherr, the artistic
director, is “resistant to the idea of slots because he feels it to be constricting.” However,
she admits that may be how it comes out when they are looking at the season in terms
of balance. She gives an example: “if we feel that two of the anchor pieces are classical
pieces, and then we might say, well, where’s the new writing slot? We might think that
48
way, but we don’t talk that way.” Instead, Sherr is “much more about the journey, the
conversation. The building of all the pieces that fit together,” like a “puzzle.” Godman
identifies the most difficult thing about programming as “finding balance.” That can be “a
balance of budget, a balance of stories, a balance of voices, perspectives.” She
compares it to a “huge scale that you’re trying to get to balance, and on each side of the
scale there are so many variables that you feel like you’re adding in little teeny weights
every time you throw another thing into the mix.”
Relationships to Other Cities
Sherr, the artistic director, often directs in other cities, particularly in New York. I
asked Godman if his New York productions affect his play choices at Intiman. She said
that while he has talked about bringing in productions he has done there, he is more
interested in beginning a show at Intiman and letting it grow and develop into a piece for
New York stages. “Intiman can be a very safe place for the development of new work. It
doesn’t have the spotlight of New York; it doesn’t have the pressure of the critics.” She
cites the audience as a key factor in that play development process, saying there is “a
very smart audience, and they’re also interested in the process. If they understand
which many of them do, that work starting out will change, and they’re part of that
process, they’re very excited about being part of that.” She calls Intiman the place
“where he [Sherr] gets to experiment and try new stuff. As an artist, you’ve got to feed
yourself and keep yourself excited to do the work.” For Intiman and Sherr, this means
the ability to experiment without the pressures of a New York audience and in front of
the more understanding Seattle crowd.
49
Godman talks about Seattle as a community that exists in relation to larger
market but at the same time the community is proud of their own unique contributions to
theatre. Godman asserts: “I think that’s just an ongoing contradiction that regional
theatres face, that the audiences do want to exist in some relation to the bigger market,
but at the same time they do really value local work.” While Intiman “will have an
ongoing commitment to nurture local writers,” they “have to exist in relation to bigger
markets.” This is one more factor that Intiman is addressing in terms of their concept of
“balance,” including work that has a relationship to the larger audiences.
New Work
Development of new work each season includes no more than one or two new
works because of their “high risk factor.” The risk is not only in the unknown potential
audience draw, but also the time pressure: “Sometimes, at the point at which you
commission them, you don’t have anything. You don’t have a script, you just have an
idea, maybe a source material. You don’t really know how they’re going to play out.”
Godman described a recently commissioned work based on a book, Nickel and Dimed:
“When we commissioned that adaptation, when we brought Joan Holden on to write it,
she had eight months to create that piece. You can imagine the risk in that. We’re not
going to see the full piece until pretty much the end of rehearsal.” She says that while
that is a terrifying prospect, often the audience is thrilled with the results.
Intiman’s programming process is based on the artistic director’s “anchor pieces,”
and the remaining plays are selected to balance those plays in terms of the stories,
voices, and diversity of perspectives. Currently, one of the anchor pieces is pre-
determined by the American Cycle. Unlike Seattle Public Theatre, marketing and the
50
mission statement play small factors in this balancing act, as do their continued
nurturing of specific projects and commissioned works.
ARTIST’S REPERTORY THEATRE (ART)
Organizational Profile
Artist’s Repertory is a theatre in Portland that started as a theatre collective,
where artistic decisions, like play selection, were made by a group of people. In 1989,
they decided that they needed to have an artistic director, and they hired Allen Nause,
who is still the artistic director there today. The organization lists nineteen staff
members on their website (www.artistsrep.org) and has a budget of about 2.2 million
dollars as listed on Form 990 from 2005 (www.guidestar.org). They are not a LORT
member, but operate under the Small Professional Theatre contract (SPT) with Actor’s
Equity Association (AEA), the professional theatre actor’s union. They are a mid-sized
organization, and are bigger than Seattle Public but smaller than Intiman.
After a two year capital campaign, ART moved into their current location in
Southwest Portland in 1995, and later expanded to two stages with administrative space
in 2005 after purchasing the entire city block. I admired their administrative and theatre
spaces. The theatre is located downtown, sandwiched in among the concrete. The
entrances were unremarkable, the building a plain brick façade. Inside, however, the
space seemed expansive. Both theatres were of a size that managed to feel intimate
and spacious at the same time. They seemed nearly identical to one another, each with
a thrust space at the floor and seats going up on three sides. When Nause gave me a
tour, some lighting was being adjusted in one of the spaces. The set was intriguing, a
floor of squares wherein each square tilted in a different direction. I was immediately
51
intrigued to watch actors negotiate that terrain, though I was sadly unable to stay and
watch the show.
Mission
Nause was friendly and forthcoming in describing the play selection process, and
I felt that he has been refining his opinions over his seventeen years of practice. He
spoke extensively of the importance of the mission statement in guiding his decisions.
The mission states:
Artists Repertory Theatre is a professional, not-for-profit theater company
dedicated to challenging artists and audiences with plays of depth and vibrancy
in an intimate setting. Artists Repertory Theatre explores the strengths, frailties
and diversity of the human condition primarily through regional premieres,
commissioned works and selected classics appropriate to contemporary issues.
Artists Repertory Theatre is dedicated to enhancing the artistic culture of
Portland and the region by establishing and maintaining education and outreach
programs consistent with the artistic mission of the theater (www.artistsrep.org).
Nause spoke most specifically about the words “challenging” and “intimate.” The plays
that they select “must work for their space,” meaning that they can be performed in a
smaller venue. He does not view the mission statement as restrictive, merely specific.
“What’s important to us is that the play does have that intimate experience. That it is a
play that really engages the audience on an emotional level. That it does challenge us,
because challenge is part of our mission.” As Langley (1990) states, the mission
statement is the basis for the artistic decisions made by the theatre, and Neuse’s play
selection process confirms this. Nause does admit that the mission statement restricts
52
some plays due to its demand for intimacy, specifically those that are large and lavish,
that require creation of a spectacle. He gave the example of Oklahoma, saying: “You
can’t imagine that play being done in an intimate environment and having an intimate
experience with it.” As a result, Artist’s Repertory Theatre does not generally do
musicals, particularly the traditional large-cast, Broadway variety.
Balance as a Meal Metaphor
Nause also spoke at length about putting together the season as a whole. He
compares the season to a seven-course meal, wherein “you wouldn’t want to serve
barbeque with stir-fry,” but this also does not mean that the season should have an
easily identifiable theme or overarching concept. Instead, a season should be balanced
and varied. “You want each course to have textures and flavors and smells and
presentation that are unique, but it should all fit together…It can all be very different, but
it should be a whole of some kind.” This metaphor for what “balance” in a season allows
for a myriad of variations yet strives for a presentation as a whole neither necessarily
larger nor smaller than its parts, but serves instead as a through-line. Of course, he
says, “we need a variety of things; people don’t want to see five of the same really
wrenching dramas that just lay your heart on the table. We need to find a mixture of
things.” This is similar to how someone wouldn’t want to serve five different chicken
dishes, but instead include soup, salads, and dessert.
Still, using a metaphor to define a concept does not totally clarify what “balance”
means for a season. Nause admits: “the idea of the season as a whole is more of a
feeling than something specific.” He further stated that finding plays that “fit our mission,
53
fit our space, fit our budgets, and are plays that we really feel that we want to do” is hard
enough without having an overarching theme or concept.
In trying to describe a “season as a whole,” he discussed how the balance
between the plays to create a “meal” must also take timing challenges into account. He
explained that the opening slot was one they tried to fill with a well-known play or
playwright, because the weather in Portland is generally good so people are less likely
to think of going to the theatre, and kids are going back to school so people are busy.
He said that “the reason those shows [Crucible, Metamorphosis] did well for us in that
slot is your single ticket buyers are a little tougher to sell, so we need a lot of group
sales,” and classic plays or well-known plays are often easy to market to school groups.
The November-December slot was likely to be filled with the most family-friendly fare of
the season, when families are visiting one other, children might be home for the
holidays, and people are looking for things to do as a family. By January, audiences are
ready to settle in for a thick drama. Ultimately, “it’s all just theories and we use it as a
guideline.” For their closing show, they want a show with “legs”, meaning “it has the
ability to be extended…that is good for us financially. So we’re thinking about all those
things as well as just those plays.” Essentially, while the slots serve to guide the
placement of the plays, they do not serve as rigid rules.
People Involved in the Selection Process
Play selection at Artist’s Repertory Theatre is ongoing. Nause relies on his
associate artistic director, literary manager, other “key staff” and an advisory group
made up of actors, directors, playwrights, and theatre academics. This advisory group
was the group that originally made programming decisions, and Nause kept the group
54
when he was hired. They now do some play research and have readings of plays: “They
act as a network and they’re not merely a play reading group, but they are a group of
people I feel understand our mission.” However, Nause makes the final decision after
he has consulted with all of these people.
Like all the theatres I interviewed, the board is not really involved in the
programming decision. Nause explains: “When it gets to things that are outside our
normal budgeting, then I really alert them, get their advice, get their buy-in. If they
haven’t bought in, then we could have problems. I try to get them excited about it.”
Otherwise, if he does not perceive any unusual demands being made in a season, he
does not generally alert them before making his decisions.
Nause oversees all productions, assists in casting, and directs some shows in
each season. “In theory, I often get to choose what I’d like to direct and what I’d like to
participate in…however, it doesn’t always work that way.” Instead, he negotiates with
his associate artistic director, who also directs several shows a season, and his guest
directors, who have their own scheduling needs.
Marketing
He says he does not, however, consult with the marketing department at all,
which was not unusual in my interviews. He says it is too hard to find plays that fit their
criteria without considering the demands of marketing. He does acknowledge:
I think our marketing people would like nothing better than for us to pick a
season that had this theme that they could look at and say, ‘This is what our
season is.’ I would rather give them a season that does everything that we need
it to do and then we find the themes. I don’t want to be restricted by that.
55
Even having said that, he later said that if there is a play he wants to include is
difficult—not popular, unknown, difficult to describe—then “you might try to balance that
with something in the season that’s going to be more popular.” This prevents him from
programming an entire season filled with unknown or difficult plays, even though their
mission emphasizes contemporary issues. Additionally, the slots he described were
clearly driven by the kinds of audiences they were trying to appeal to; for example,
determining which plays are more well-known in order to place them in a particular time
within the season.
After discussing several new plays that are currently receiving attention in
theatre, he laughed and said: “We in the theatre, we have all these ideas about plays
and what’s hot, and the general audience, that’s just not on their radar.” It is thus even
harder to achieve balance if you are not certain how particular titles might balance
against each other in terms of popularity.
Availability of Rights
They have had increasing difficulty in obtaining rights to plays they would like to
produce as “other theatres have become more like us” and there are multiple theatres
attempting to obtain rights for the same play. In addition to negotiating the timelines of
various playwrights’ agents, they have recently found themselves in competition for
scripts with other local theatres such as Portland Center Stage. When Portland Center
Stage was first created during Artist’s Repertory’s sixth season, they primarily
performed more classic plays such as Shakespeare, Shaw, or Chekhov. While the
competition is higher, this does not change the play selection significantly, because
Nause often will make the decision to try to produce the play before obtaining the rights.
56
Diversity
In terms of ethnicity or gender being a factor in the process, Nause says
“sometimes.” They are “cognizant of trying to have voices that represent society,
community and culture as a whole…first we’re looking for the best plays, and then out of
that we want to make sure we have our community represented in our work.” Diversity
is also not a factor in terms of available actors. While he acknowledges that casting
multi-ethnic actors can be difficult in Portland, this does not prevent him from
considering scripts that demand them: “If we find a script we want to do, we say we’ll do
it and then try to find the people.”
Guiding Principals
When asked if he consults any reference material, Nause said that he didn’t
know of any. Instead, he referred back to the various elements in our conversation, and
indicated that “we have these things that are really guidelines, where nothing’s hard and
fast and for every rule something will come along and break it. But we use those
guidelines.” He looks first at the mission statement, finds plays that fit those guidelines,
are appealing in some way, and balances each play against each other in terms of their
popularity, their tone, their technical requirements, how well they might fit in a particular
slot, and how they interact with one another. He makes his initial decisions and then
begins the process of negotiating for the plays that he wants, occasionally having to
substitute one for another. The hardest thing about season programming, he says, is
“having a deadline.” The process never really ends, as they are continually thinking
ahead to seasons two or three years from now.
57
PROFILE THEATRE
Organizational Profile
Profile Theatre is a small theatre, which has only recently grown from one to
three paid staff members. Their budget is about 330,000 dollars
(www.tcg.org/tools/profiles) and they are not a LORT member but do operate under the
Small Professional Theatre contract with Actor’s Equity Association.
They have an eight-member board (www.guidestar.org) and they are the smallest
theatre in my research. Like Seattle Public, sustainability is a high priority.
Profile Theatre exists within the Theatre! Theatre! complex in the Belmont
neighborhood in Portland. Small cafes and boutiques line the street, a big city
neighborhood seeming to mimic a small town main street. The theatre is unassuming,
housed in a building that contains two theatre spaces, offices, and connects to a tea
shop and a clothing store. The ‘lobby’ is more of a hallway, cluttered with tables full of
information about the various groups that perform here in addition to flyers, brochures
and posters for many other arts events across town. Their offices are upstairs from the
theatre space, with the walls covered in posters and blown-up reviews from their
previous productions.
Mission Statement and Selection Process
Their mission statement is simple and clearly helps to guide the season
programming. Their mission states:
Profile Theatre Project was founded to celebrate the writer's contribution to live
theatre by producing a full season of plays by (or about) a single playwright each
58
season and is supported by a strong Educational Enrichment Program
(www.profiletheatre.org)
First a playwright is selected for the season, and then the play selection comes out of
that playwright’s body of work. I interviewed the founding artistic director, Jane Unger,
who was the sole staff member until recently.
Unger definitively stated that she alone selects the playwrights and the plays for
consideration. She explained that she might ask for other people’s opinions and use
people she trusts or the board as a sounding board, but she alone makes the final
decision. A theatre whose mission focuses on one playwright is unique, with only one
other theatre in the United States having a similar mission (Signature Theatre in New
York, which specifies American playwrights). In a way, this makes her job easier
because “every other theatre is looking at trying to find a balance, a little bit of this, a
little bit of that. We go with one writer, and then within that writer’s work we have to find
a balance.” Rather than having to continually balance many factors at once, once the
playwright is decided the list of possible selections is automatically created.
Marketing and Financial Concerns
Choosing the playwright is thus a significant portion of the planning process.
Marketing is also a big factor in the decision of playwright selection. “In deciding on a
playwright, a major factor is their popularity, their ability to sell tickets. That has more to
do with choice of playwright.” She cites several years where sales have dipped because
audiences were unfamiliar with Lanford Wilson or Romulus Linney’s work.
As founding artistic director, Unger has had a list of playwrights that she has
wanted to produce ever since she started the theatre ten years ago. Because only one
59
playwright is performed each year, the list tends to grow larger rather than smaller, and
Unger feels that she will never run out of playwrights.
Another factor, similar to the marketing concerns, is the overall financial solvency
of the theatre. Due to its small size, the way it has only recently begun to add staff
members, and Unger’s position as a founder, Unger has a vested interest in seeing the
theatre continue. When I asked if she sees herself continuing indefinitely with the
organization, she said: “I don’t see stopping until we’re at a point where I can turn it
over, when I can see that it can stand on its own.” She spoke of the theatre’s new
position in the building as the sole tenant of the space, rather than renting the space on
a show-by-show basis. This has allowed them to expand their programming this year to
include more staged readings in addition to the performances. This demand means that
they must have a playwright with a large enough body of work to choose from, so newer
playwrights with only a few plays cannot be considered. Additionally, as the sole tenant
they are under more pressure to sell tickets. This explains why marketing concerns are
such a large factor for them.
Diversity
Gender and ethnicity are a small factor in the decision making process, says
Unger. Gender came into play with the current season’s playwright, Wendy
Wasserstein: “I had noticed how long it had been since we featured a woman
playwright, and I had wanted to do a woman playwright for a long time, but I just was
not finding anything that spoke to me.” However, Unger said she thought less about
Wasserstein’s gender and more about her body of work.
60
Ethnicity is more of a factor in terms of restricting some of the authors that Unger
will consider. She offered the example of August Wilson, and said that while she had
spoken to the playwright about “doing a season of his plays, but it would have broken
our bank account because the pool is very limited for African American actors in
Portland…we’re just not equipped to do that.” Therefore plays that have requirements
for large numbers of African-American actors cannot be produced, not only in terms of
the playwrights that are chosen, but possibly plays within a playwright’s body of work as
well. Unger says that “race isn’t the deciding factor, it’s the money factor” involved in
committing to casting African-American actors.
Balance
While she said that their theatre’s mission statement allows them to avoid the
balancing of seasons that most artistic directors have to worry about, there is still some
amount of balancing. When I asked her what the deciding factor is in choosing a
particular playwright, she said: “It’s a combination of so many things. What’s been done
recently, the timing, what we’ve done before, how we want to follow it up.” Additionally,
there is the concern of programming a playwright that is recognizable with a large
enough body of work.
I asked if she ever consulted any reference materials when selecting the
playwright or the plays. She does not necessarily favor work that has been done in
other cities, and she just wants to read the plays and decide for herself if they will work
for Profile Theatre. “There are many great writers in this country, in this world. I don’t
need to consult something; I need to keep reading their plays, that’s what takes up the
time.”
61
A CONTEMPORARY THEATRE (ACT)
Organizational Profile
A Contemporary Theatre, or ACT, is a large regional theatre in Seattle with about
a five million dollar budget. They were founded in 1965 and are in their 42nd season.
While they do not list their staff on their website, it is clearly a large organization with at
least 100 employees. In 1995, they moved into their current location, Kreielsheimer
Place, in downtown Seattle. Their larger stage is classified as LORT B, weekly box
office receipts from $70,000.00 to $109,999.99; while their smaller venue is classified as
LORT C, weekly receipts from $45,000.00 to $69,999.99 (Actor’s Equity Association,
2005, p. 19). They are the largest theatre I studied and have been in operation the
longest. Their mission is:
ACT's mission is to build a nationally recognized contemporary theatre, rooted in
downtown Seattle that sets the highest standard for consistent quality, breadth of
programming, and audience loyalty. ACT is passionately committed to theatre
deeply rooted in our community, which is recognized nationally for its high
standards of production of contemporary theatre. This standard is evident in the
quality of artists, the variety of work, the electricity between audience and
performer, the overall experience of our audience, our relationship with young,
talented new artists, the quality of our staff, and most particularly in the loyalty of
our audience. We are committed to enriching the cultural life of downtown and
the surrounding region (www.acttheatre.org).
ACT’s mission reflects a commitment to contemporary theatre, which focuses their play
selection considerably.
62
In the fall of 2006, I saw a production of Caryl Churchill’s newest play, A Number,
which was a small, two-person show exploring parent-child relationships but
complicated by human cloning. It was a well done production, with high levels of
production value that did not distract but simply served the play. It was produced in their
smaller theatre, which is a theatre in the round, and I enjoyed how the play wound
together universal themes of the parent-child relationship while posing a contemporary
social question.
I interviewed Kurt Beattie, the artistic director of ACT. He has been artistic
director since 2003. Throughout our interview, Beattie was forthright and candid, and
often returned to examples of the plays ACT has produced to illustrate his points. Over
and over again, he returned to the idea that he is motivated to program based on artistic
excellence.
Selection Process and Mission
Beattie’s play selection process is to find plays that he feels are worth producing.
He gathers a long list of plays together, which is then whittled down to about ten
selections. At this point, he shows his short list to the staff of ACT and receives input on
each play to determine the final six or seven plays. Everyone is given the opportunity to
make suggestions, and a budget for each show is drafted. The board does not have a
say in artistic considerations, but they do play a role in shaping the budgets. With all of
that information, he makes the final decision. His decision is based primarily on his
estimation of the play’s quality and its ability to demonstrate their mission statement,
with considerations for how the community will respond, the available talent pool of
actors, and occasionally he will look to balance riskier works with less risky work.
63
The mission of ACT is specific and evident in their name. Beattie explains: “We’ll
probably never produce plays that are written before 1900, and rarely plays that are
written before WWII.” However, their mission is to produce contemporary work that
wrestles with contemporary issues, so “it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen in the future if
there were truly a great play that was really about something, some contemporary
problem.” Beattie has thought extensively about the mission of ACT and has written out
these ideas into a personal manifesto to help clarify what the mission of ACT means
and how that manifests itself in programming a season.
In addition to the mission of ACT specifically, Beattie explained that there are two
basic principles of all regional non-profit theatre: “For one, it’s got to create a service for
the community, and two, it has to expand the art.” He believes that all non-profit regional
theatres must adhere to these principles in order to be successful, and his mission
statement serves to refine and direct these basic guidelines.
New plays are clearly important to ACT. They are continually developing new
plays, particularly within the Seattle community. This year, they produced a show by a
local writer called Mitzi’s Abortion, to which Beattie proudly says: “Mitzi’s Abortion was
written by a local playwright, which is almost unheard of, to produce a local playwright.”
Beattie was quick to say that it is the quality of a play that prompts him to produce it,
and being homegrown, while appealing, is secondary.
Marketing Concerns and Audience Appeal
Marketing considerations are heard and understood, but are sometimes ignored
in favor of producing work Beattie feels is important, like Mitzi’s Abortion. “To have the
word [abortion] in the title is box office death,” he says, but he knew that when he
64
programmed it. The play did not do as well as they would have liked, but “marketing is
encouraged to respond, and last season we ignored it. We wanted to say to the public,
we’re a theatre that’s interested in being ahead of the curve, not behind it.” In the same
season, they produced Pillowman, A Number, Miss Witherspoon, and Steve Martin’s
adaptation of The Underpants. “They’re all pointedly about cultural problems and
conditions. They’re made so they’re not just comedies but they’re comedies about dark
problems in the world. So the overall season was pretty aggressive.” In the end, the
audiences did not come in the numbers they expected. Beattie theorized that perhaps
“they didn’t want to be on the edge so much.” He does not apologize for this, and is
clearly proud of the art that was produced.
However, Beattie does not neglect thinking about what might appeal to his
audience entirely. He was excited about the introduction of a Tessitura database, which
he describes as “a very elegant tool for really knowing your audience.” This database
has the “ability to cross reference people in terms of their attendance history, activity of
donors, and a lot of other things is vast compared to what has been available to us
before.” Currently, they are working to build up that database, but he does not feel it will
necessarily impact the programming process. It will simply give them the ability to
predict better how a particular show will do and do adjust their budgeted ticket sales per
show accordingly. In his thirty-five years of professional theatre, Beattie doesn’t “know
anybody who has a crystal ball and can look into the future and can accurately predict
the success or failure for any given play,” and Tessitura is merely a tool to aid in the
prediction.
65
Diversity
For Beattie, ethnicity and gender do not play a role in his selection process: “I
would say the most compelling piece of art gets my attention.” He explains:
I’m a man, so I have inevitable limitation, just as a woman has inevitable
limitations. We’re creatures of our sex to a certain extent, and we are blind in
certain ways. I can’t understand totally what it is to live inside a woman’s skin,
and a woman can’t understand entirely what it is to be a man, either. Art allows
us to sort of dwell in each other’s brains and bodies. It is transformative in that
respect. I’ll just accept that I’m not God and I miss a good play because I am
limited as a human being as we all are. But I know that if I’m truthful with myself,
I’ll be able to recognize something that really means something to me.
He repeated through the interview several times, “I won’t program cynically.” He
requires that each play in his season be something that he responds to. The ethnicity or
gender of the playwright is not important. This does not mean that his programming
becomes one-sided, focusing only on one voice. This season includes three plays by
women, Claire Booth Luce’s The Women, Sarah Ruhl’s Clean House and Alice
Childress’s Wine in the Wilderness. Beattie discussed at length how one of the themes
for this season was examining how the position of women in society has changed as
depicted by the 1930’s The Women to Clean House’s modern portrayal.
Beattie recognizes his personal limitations in being able to program multi-ethnic
theatre that speaks to a diverse audience, and created the Hansburry project. The
Hansburry project is an autonomous theatre that exists within ACT and “is a
professional Black theatre company dedicated to the artistic exploration of African
66
American life, history and culture” (www.acttheatre.org/community). He created this with
a University of Washington professor, Valerie Curtis-Newton, who specializes in African
American theatre because, as he explained, the community has lost many of its smaller
theatres dedicated to diversity. He wants the Hansburry project to develop and grow
based on the black community: “If it develops a white audience, fine, but I don’t care
about that. It’s really about—can it connect with a community? And grow to really share
the building with us to their own full season, or move out and take up roots in the
community.” He does not feel that the Hansburry project prevents him from including
“hyphenated writers” in ACT’s regular season, however, he says he will program “any
writer of any ethnicity in which the play is good and speaks to us.”
Local Talent
The local talent pool can have some effect on the play selection process. Beattie
clarifies: “sometimes there’s a reason for doing a play because there’s a great actor
who can do it.” The actor is the only part of the process that is absolutely essential to
theatre making, and “that is a good reason for doing a play, because it gives a great
actor the chance to make great art.” Similarly, if he does not feel that he can cast a play
based primarily on his local pool of actors, it is unlikely that play would be included in
the season.
Balance and Risk
Unlike some of the other people that I interviewed, Beattie did not speak in terms
of addressing the season as “balanced,” but instead discussed thematic qualities that
drew the plays together. I asked if he develops these themes, like this season’s themes
67
about the position of women in society, while making his selections and he responded:
“Maybe, but I think a lot of times it’s more serendipitous than that. The zeitgeist is
throwing up these interesting connections that are about the time and place that world
culture is at, and sometimes it’s about seeing those connections.” The themes are
developed and conceptualized after the list of plays has been narrowed down to the
short list.
Beattie researches plays and attempts to predict their success, but predicting
success is a minor factor in his programming. Beattie admits that he thinks about the
riskier plays within each season, but views risk as unavoidable: “risk is essential, few
have ever made anything good without it.” It is more important to program plays he feels
are important to produce rather than program in fear of ticket sales. Additionally, plays
are not produced or received identically, but vary from community to community: “Each
production of a play, no matter how successful it’s been elsewhere, is a unique thing.”
He travels and watches other theatre’s productions of shows that he may have
programmed already or is currently considering, but seeing a poor production of a show
he believes will do well at ACT does not dissuade him from continuing to include it.
Beattie does not believe that a season should be “balanced.” He explains what
the definition of balance means to him:
A balanced season means I’m going to do a couple comedies because I know
people like comedies, and then I’m going to do one kind of aggressive new work,
and then I’m going to find some redemptive stories to throw in there so that
basically they’ll come away from the season feeling redeemed and uplifted,
having had a good time and be interested in coming back. That’s what a
68
balanced season means in a lot of programming and regional theatre. I don’t
think that’s very interesting.
He says that often people use a meal metaphor to describe a season: “You get a little
soup, then you get the main course, and a salad, and then you get the dessert.”
Instead, he prefers “to think about it like a journey through a magazine, where you might
get a comic short story, but you get a related article about the Sudan, like a good edition
of the New Yorker.” He views himself as an editor, culling the best of what is around at
the time and deftly working them together into a whole. This is different then trying to
find plays that balance one another in various ways because Beattie is instead drawing
on the best material that is available at the time. For example, he would not be
compelled to program in equal number of comedies and dramas if he felt there was a
dearth of good, compelling comedies that year.
This is reflected in his evaluation of a season, to which he definitively replied: “If
the work was artistically good.” I asked him if he does any kind of monetary evaluation,
and he answered: “I always feel bad if a play doesn’t sell tickets.” He admits that the
board and development team will be unhappy about poor sales, because it falls on the
shoulders of the development department and the board to help get that money in the
door to help make it right” and balance the budget, “but if the artistic quality of the work
isn’t good, nothing else can be right.” Budgeting is part of the season planning process,
but if the shows do not do as well financially as budgeted, this does not effect Beattie’s
evaluation if a season was successful or not.
When asked what the most difficult thing about programming was, Beattie named
the inability to predict success: “It’s the fact that you know that no matter what you did
69
well or poorly last season, it’s not going to have much relationship to what the next
season is going to be.” He says “it’s very hard to know, categorically, or to create a
successful calculus based on your own experience, that’s going to predict success in
programming.” The world is constantly changing, and a successful programmer needs
to be flexible in recognizing what is happening in the world and how to respond to that.
“Evolution is going on constantly…it can be revolutionary and interesting to do an old
play, it doesn’t mean that you are necessarily going to produce something that was
written last year.” Above all, while he attempts to be well informed to the possible
outcomes of any production, he is committed to his two guiding principles for any non-
profit theatre: to serve the community and expand the art.
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS
INTRODUCTION
In this research, I identify and explore the impact of multiple factors on season
selection for specific professional theatres in the Pacific Northwest. Comparing the data
gathered from my interviews to the data from my literature review, I had some
interesting results. Often the data was consistent, such as how the mission statement is
the foundation for the season selection process, or how new work is risky and difficult to
include in a season. Financial concerns, outside of marketing, were much less of a
factor then the literature suggested. Marketing played a slightly larger role for the
70
theatres I examined, but often the information was used to make decisions that were not
solely financial.
In my interviews, the process of selecting the season was frequently viewed as
the “sacred space” of the artistic staff. The factors that go into the selection process are
filtered through the artistic director, who is responsible for the final selection.
GUIDING FORCES: MISSION STATEMENTS AND THE ORGANIZATION
Mission Statement
The mission statement is the foundation for the decision-making process. All of
the participants cited their mission statement as a factor in play selection. In fact it was
the only factor from the literature review that was used by all of the theatres I
interviewed.
Some used their mission statement to guide their process more than others.
Roscoe with Seattle Public described their process of refining their mission so that it
could more accurately reflect their theatre and serve to guide their process in the future.
This is consistent with the literature: “the mission statement should describe what the
organization does, whom it serves, and what it intends to accomplish” (Bernstein 2007,
p. 69). Because their mission statement was not accurately reflecting the theatre, it was
refined. Profile Theatre is heavily guided by their mission statement, which limits their
programming to one playwright per season, with the intent to explore the playwright’s
body of work.
ACT and ART both cited their mission statements as defining the parameters of
the theatre’s identity. ART highlights the scope of their productions, emphasizing
intimacy. Nause returned often to the mission statement in explaining his rationale for
71
factors that he uses in his decision-making process. Limiting their repertoire to
contemporary work defines ACT. Beattie returned often not only to ACT’s mission, but
also to his personal reflection about what their mission means in programmatic
decisions. He also cited the non-profit theatre model as being defined by the existence
of their mission, which they are required to fulfill.
Godman with Intiman was the only person that did not cite the mission statement
as critical to play selection. She discussed the mission as prompting diversity and
offering a starting point. At one point, Godman explained that mission statements are
open to interpretation, that it is “all a matter of taste or preference. You could look at a
play and one person would say it fits [the mission] and another might say it doesn’t.”
This may be in part why she did not cite the mission statement as a factor as often as
the other participants did. Even though she believes that mission statements are open
to interpretation, she also feels that the artistic personnel at Intiman interpret the
mission statement in a similar way.
The mission statement was the foundation of programming choices for four of the
interview participants, and it was a factor for the fifth. Additionally, my work with Lord
Leebrick theatre was based in identifying plays to fulfill their mission. My research
shows the mission statement as the first and most important factor guiding the decision-
making process.
The implications for theatre organizations are that a strong mission statement
that clearly defines the theatre will be much more helpful than a theatre statement that
is vague. According to the literature, the season is the representation of the theatre’s
mission, and often the first way potential audience determines the theatre’s identity. If
72
the mission statement is not clear enough to guide the decision-making process, then
the resulting season selection may not offer a strong sense of identity, making it difficult
to define the parameters and purpose of the theatre for the staff, the audience, potential
donors and potential granting agencies.
The Role of the Board
The board as an entity played little to no role in determining the programming for
the season for any of the theatres I contacted. At most, Intiman stated that they keep
their boards abreast of developments in season planning. For ACT, the board plays a
role in deciding how much money can be budgeted for productions, which effects the
process in a minor way by limiting the scope of some plays in consideration for
inclusion. This is consistent with Langley’s (1990) assertion that the board will make
financially based decisions, but no artistic director felt that the decision-making process
was swayed by needing to appeal to the board for approval. In fact, using the word
“approval” was clearly the wrong choice of words in phrasing my questions, because
several artistic personnel interviewed had a visible reaction to this word. Roscoe with
Seattle Public and Unger with Profile Theatre were both quick to explain that while they
maintain close relationships with their boards, the board in no way functions as an
obstacle to producing their desired season.
The literature suggests that boards make decisions that are financially motivated,
and the theatres I examined want to protect the artistic integrity of the mission
statement. This suggests that the board’s role should be clearly defined in the artistic
decision-making process. What kind of input should they have? How can they voice
their concerns about a season they might disagree with? Should they always follow the
73
artistic director’s choices? How much should the artistic director keep them aware of the
decision-making process? When it is appropriate for them to object to a season
selection? Each theatre should answer these questions for themselves and make all
staff and board members aware of them, in order to avoid potential problems. If an
artistic director spend a considerable amount of time and research selecting a season
they feel best illustrates the mission statement, only to have the board protest their
choice, then this could result in resentment and continued hard feelings. A theatre
operating under Roscoe’s assumption, the board “set the mission for the organization
and then hire [artistic directors] to see that mission fulfilled,” should be sure everyone
understands this.
The Role of the Managing Director and Other Staff
The amount of staff participation in the decision-making process varied from
none at all for Unger at Profile Theatre, to ACT, which opens up their short list of plays
to garner opinions from the entire staff. In all cases, while opinions were solicited from
various staff members, the theatres studied expressed that it is ultimately the artistic
staff’s decision.
This is similar to the role that the board plays in the season selection process. It
was implied or stated by all people I interviewed that the involvement of the staff in the
decision-making process is at the behest of the artistic director. The literature, the
foundational role of the mission statement, and the very minor level of involvement the
board or staff plays suggests that the artistic director’s season selection process is
viewed as a sacred space. People outside the artistic staff must be invited to participate
74
in the process. I did not interview organizational staff outside of artistic personnel, so I
am unable to determine how they view their role in this process.
If an artistic director were programming seasons deemed impossible to produce
or inconsistent with the mission, the staff and board must step in. However, my
interviews show that all the artistic staff I interviewed are aware of the need to follow the
mission statement and also create a season that is possible to produce. Additionally,
they are not unaware of financial concerns, which I will address later in this chapter. All
of this supports the idea that season selection is entirely within the domain of the artistic
director, who often will seek outside opinions to balance the various demands of a
season, but is not required to.
DIVERSITY
Diversity of Local Talent Pool
Profile Theatre and Seattle Public cited the availability of ethnically diverse actors
as an obstacle to their inclusion of more diverse works. My observation of the season
selection process at Lord Leebrick was that the process was definitely affected by the
perceived availability of diversity within the local talent pool. Smaller theatres are
challenged in programming ethnically-based plays in communities where the local talent
pool is extremely limited because the artistic staff is not confident in their ability to cast
these plays.
For example, Intiman emphasized that diversity of ethnicity as well as talent
affects available casting pool. Artistic Director, Godman explained: “Say we were going
to do Streetcar Named Desire and set it in Latin America, and expect to get twelve
Latino actors. That’s not realistic.” Godman also offered her perspective on the
75
challenge of casting multi-ethnic plays in Seattle: “I’m sure the talent is there, but it is
whether they’ve decided to make this crazy business their life’s work.”
Artistic Directors at both A Contemporary Theatre and Artist’s Repertory Theatre
felt confident that if they programmed a play that required a diverse cast, they would be
able to cast those roles based on the local talent pool.
All theatres in my research are located in the same two cities, yet theatres from
both places had different perceptions on the availability of multi-ethnic actors. For
example, in Seattle, Seattle Public and Intiman cited ethnicity as an impediment for
selecting a play due to casting concerns, while ACT did not believe this to be the case.
It also varied in Portland. For instance, Profile Theatre cited ethnicity of the cast as a
large factor in the decision-making process, while ART said it was not a factor at all. It is
possible that the relative size of the organization and the amount of money they pay
their actors could be a factor for the actors deciding whether or not to audition for those
theatres, but that is outside the scope of my research.
The Brustein-Wilson Debate
Profile, ART, ACT and Seattle Public Theatre all stated that they are first looking
for the best plays before they consider the ethnicity of playwrights, the themes of the
play, or the casting needs within their seasons. This perspective is consistent with
Brustein’s assertion that producing the best art should come before any other factor.
However, all of the theatres expressed a desire to have a range of voices portrayed on
their stages, not just in ethnicity and gender, but also in age or perspective. This is not
part of the initial selection process, but after the season has been selected it is reviewed
to prevent a uniformity of voices. This is consistent with the research in identifying a
76
need to speak to a broad range of community members without having a set formula for
their inclusion.
ACT theatre clearly supports the Wilson prospective, however, in their creation of
the Hansburry project. The Hansburry project gives artistic control in the creation of
African-American theatre to African-Americans, as Wilson calls for. The intent of the
Hansburry project is to appeal to African-American audiences.
Intiman is unusual from the other theatres interviewed because they include
considerations of ethnicity and gender explicitly in their decision-making process, as is
demanded by the “community pillar” portion of their mission statement: “Part of that is
making sure that the voices we hear on the stage are as diverse as they can be, and
the points of view that are represented are as diverse as they can be. So yes, we do
consider that in programming.” (Godman, personal communication, March 28, 2007)
Godman was not clear how this worked when selecting specific plays, she merely
identified considering diversity a factor in the process.
Artistic directors are aware of the need to address diversity in some capacity, but
of the theatres I interviewed, all but one rejected the notion that diversity should be a
major factor in the decision-making process. Participants who did not include diversity
as a significant factor spoke of a desire to first produce the best plays and secondly
addressing diversity needs after that or not at all. This illustrates Brustein’s argument:
artists want to produce the best plays available. What this suggests to me is a need to
continue to develop resources for minority playwrights. If there are a greater number of
good plays by minority playwrights, this could increase the numbers of minority
playwrights who get produced.
77
COMMUNITY CONTEXT
Size of the Organization
For the theatres I studied, the size of the organization corresponded to their
concerns about sustainability. The larger theatres, ACT, Intiman, and ART,
acknowledged that they do look at financial information, but it does not heavily affect
their selection process. The smaller theatres, Seattle Public and Profile Theatre, both
cited marketing and financial concerns as important to their selection process due to the
need to sustain the organization. The greater the amount of resources at the
organization’s disposal, the less likely they were to give great weight to financial
concerns.
Interestingly, the size or age of the theatre did not correspond with any other
factors in the theatres I examined. Seattle Public, one of the smaller theatres, cited their
position in relationship to other theatres as being important for defining themselves.
They define themselves in part by how they are different from the larger theatres in
Seattle. This was not true for Profile Theatre, the smallest of the theatres I looked at, but
the only one to place little weight on the context of their surrounding community as a
factor in the decision-making process.
ACT and Intiman, the largest of the theatres I studied, have achieved national
recognition as a regional theatre, but they respond to their profile in different ways.
Beattie at ACT talked at length about the organization’s desire to employ local talent
and respond to the issues within the community, while Godman at Intiman talked at
length about Intiman’s relationship to other communities.
78
Whitehead’s (2002) notion about the institutionalization of art partially contradicts
my research results. He argues that our non-profit regional theatres have become
institutionalized, with the art pushed to the side to serve the needs of sustaining the
organization first. In my interviews, I found that the larger theatre organizations were
less concerned about sustainability and less likely to cite financial concerns as a basis
for their artistic decision-making. Profile Theatre is only ten years old, and Seattle Public
has existed in its current form for seven years. Both of them cited marketing concerns
and financial stability as a large part of their decision-making process. By contrast, ART
is 25, Intiman is 35 years old, and ACT is 45. Intiman was the only one of the three to
cite marketing concerns as a factor, and while all of them use ticket sales in evaluating
the success of a season, none of them cited this as largely influential in determining the
next season’s offerings.
Whitehead (2002) also claims that decisions about the art itself are moving more
into the hands of boards and administrators, which was not the case for any of the
theatres I examined, even if they were more concerned with financial stability. The
board played almost no role in the decision-making process. Administrators were
sometimes involved in the process, but their role in season selection was not a large
factor.
My research is consistent with the RAND report, The Performing Arts in a New
Era (McCarthy, 2001) that shows large, professional and small, community-based
performing arts organizations growing at the expense of mid-sized organizations. Profile
Theatre and Seattle Public Theatre are mid-sized theatres, and sustainability is a much
greater concern for them.
79
The size of the organization determines the amount of resources they have to
produce plays and how much time each staff member has to devote to various tasks.
For example, Profile has only three staff members. A greater percentage of staff time
must be devoted to maintaining the organization, possibly taking away from time to
research and read plays for season selection. The smaller a theatre is, and the less its
resources and the more demands are made on each staff member, and the less
proportionate amount of time the artistic staff can devote to the season planning
process. This could change their evaluative criteria, like for Seattle Public and Profile
Theatre, favoring financial results because they are easy to access and tangible, unlike
artistic criteria for evaluation.
Local Talent
The available local talent was a factor in all of the theatres I interviewed except
ART. Nause at ART explained that he programs his season based on the mission and
the balance of the season as a whole, and trusts that he will find the actors to fill the
roles.
For ACT, Beattie occasionally programs a particular play because he believes it
will be a good fit for his local talent pool, highlighting their desires or talents in a
collaboration to create good theatre. Similarly, Unger at Profile Theatre cited a desire to
program plays that will better fit the available pool of actors. Because it is cost-
prohibitive to cast actors from out of town that will require housing, both of these
theatres cited the need to keep costs low as an additional rationale for selecting plays
that match the skill set of the local actors.
80
Godman at Intiman also expressed that there was a need to keep the number of
out-of-town actors low for cost reasons, but did not emphasize the need to appeal to the
local talent pool. Instead, she phrased it in terms of making sure that they have a
minimum number of plays in a season that require special skill sets leading to a need
for out-of-town actors.
The availability of local talent impacts the decision-making processes both in
which plays are considered and contributes to the financial burden of a production if it
requires out-of-town talent. Theatres might consider ways of continuing to develop their
local talent pool to ensure a diverse and large resource and minimize the impact of the
local talent pool as a factor in the season selection process.
CHALLENGES TO NEW PLAY DEVELOPMENT
Demanding Resources
The literature review suggested that new plays demand considerably more
resources than other plays, and most of the theatres I studied supported this assertion.
However, all the artistic staff I interviewed expressed that including new work was
desirable to them as artists, even if it was unsustainable at their organization.
Roscoe at Seattle Public said that developing new work was currently
unsustainable by the theatre. Godman at Intiman explained that new work submitted to
them often goes unread for a great length of time, because they have downsized and
eliminated their literary manager position.
ACT and ART, a large and mid-size theatre respectively, both regularly produce
new work because their missions demand it. However, both Beattie and Nause
recognized that producing new work is risky, and often they will attempt to offset that
81
risk by ensuring that their season also includes plays that the audience might be familiar
with. Both theatres are committed not only to producing new work, but expressed a
desire to include regional new work and nurture local playwriting talent.
Profile Theatre includes new work as appropriate, depending on the playwright
selected for that season. This season, they are doing a reading of Wasserstein’s new
play. Once in their third season, Profile has collaborated with the selected playwright for
the season to develop new work, but this has not yet been repeated.
New work continues to have a disadvantage in being considered for inclusion in
a season, and the reasons given in the theatres I spoke with were related to the
perceived risk of the audience reaction and the resulting financial risk for the
organization. This is consistent with the literature. From my research, the best way to
include new works in a season is to have a mission statement that demands their
inclusion.
MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT
Name Appeal
Name recognition of the playwright or title of the work can alleviate risk. Godman
at Intiman used the example of a commissioned work in 2001, Nickel and Dimed.
Adapting the play from a best-selling book of the same name alleviated some of the risk
involved in producing a new work.
For Profile Theatre, the name recognition of the playwright they select for the
season heavily affects their ability to see tickets. Unger gave the example of Lanford
Wilson, who she found to be surprisingly unknown by Portland theatergoers. Ticket
82
sales for that season were very low in comparison to better-known playwrights such as
Wendy Wasserstein and Terrance McNally.
At Seattle Public, the name recognition of the playwright is less important than
the emotional tone of the piece: “It might be a name, but that doesn’t necessarily mean
it’s a draw. Sometimes a name can work against you.” In this example, she described
an instance of a well-known contemporary play, Wit, being placed in their opening slot
that is more financially successful with a play with a lighter tone.
For ACT and ART, Beattie and Nause acknowledge that while they are aware of
the name recognition of the playwright, this has little weight in their decision to program
a play.
In all these examples of the effects of name recognition, the artistic personnel are
making assumptions about the knowledge of their community. In the case of Profile
Theatre, Unger underestimated the popularity of Lanford Wilson, even though she does
use name recognition as a factor in her decision-making process. Therefore, predicting
the popularity of a playwright could be as difficult as predicting the popularity of a
particular play. It is possible the name recognition of the playwright changes how
marketing departments might change their approach in marketing a play, thereby
possibly changing the financial success of a play and effecting its perceived success.
However, this would not change the decision-making process of the artistic director in
selecting that play, only in how they might evaluate it, which is outside the scope of my
question.
83
Knowing the Audience
Knowing your audience and the larger community context of your organization is
a key factor in interpreting the mission statement of the organization into a concrete
season selection. While no artistic director ever suggested that the audience might
participate in the decision-making process, all artistic personnel I interviewed cited
knowledge of the audience as one of the keys to successful programming.
Seattle Public Theatre used the audience as a key factor in driving their re-
evaluation of their mission statement. Knowing what plays the audience responded to in
order to predict what might interest them in the future helped the staff and board to
develop a mission statement consistent with their current audience. Additionally, they
use the audience as a tool of evaluation for the success of a season. If they felt the
audience responded well, or the season “raised the profile of the theatre in the
community,” it is considered successful.
Intiman uses their audience to obtain feedback about the season as well. The
marketing department employs the use of surveys to obtain data. Intiman has also
created a group of people, self-selected, to attend the plays and give feedback,
operating similarly to a focus group. This information is used to evaluate the success of
a season; similar to the way Seattle Public uses information about the audience.
ART has a long history in Portland, and Nause states that some of their audience
has attended since the beginning, thirty-five years ago. He has been the artistic director
for seventeen years, and spoke of the audience in terms of the trust that he has
developed with them over that time. The mission of ART is clear, and the audience
84
trusts that Nause will continue to program seasons based on that mission, as he has for
so long.
Unger at Profile Theatre spoke of knowing the audience in terms of recognizing
what plays and playwrights are popular in the Portland community. Her example of
underestimating the popularity of Lanford Wilson is applicable here. She implied that if
she had known how little his name was recognized in the Portland area, she might have
considered programming a different playwright for the season. She is continually
learning about her audience and refining her knowledge of them.
Beattie at ACT is beginning the process of gathering information about the
audience to predict the success of a season using a Tessitura database, rather than
simply using the audience as a tool of evaluation. He hopes to use the information
gathered about preferences of the audience and attendance patterns in order to better
predict the success of an individual play. ACT can then set a more accurate estimation
of budgets and ticket sales based on expected attendance. However, he did not indicate
that this information would dramatically change the plays he selects, only that the
organization might get a better indication of the financial success of a season.
While the concept of “knowing the audience” was used in different ways by the
different theatres I spoke to, the audience was some factor in either the decision-making
process or the evaluation of a season. Because the concept of knowledge of the
audience did not arise in my literature review, I did not initially consider it a factor.
However, all participants addressed it in some way. I consider this a marketing factor,
since that is where most of this information would come from, but it can also be
classified as part of the organization’s community context. According to the literature,
85
part of the mission statement should include whom the organization is attempting to
appeal to. In many cases, this is simply a geographical area. Knowing who is attending
from within that could help to further identify who the audience is and how that may be
different from who the organizations would like it to be. For programming, this could
mean adjusting plays selections to appeal to either the known audience or attempt to
address the potential audience with different selections that are still consistent with the
mission.
Organizationally Unique
The size of the theatre and the amount of resources they allocate for marketing
and development may have a relationship to the influence marketing plays, which would
require further research to explore. In the theatres I interviewed, the smaller
organizations were more likely to cite marketing concerns as a factor. Neither Seattle
Public nor Profile Theatre has a dedicated staff person to address marketing, while
ART, ACT, and Intiman all have one or more persons devoted to marketing and
development. This has the same implications as the size of the organizations, that
smaller organizations have fewer resources to devote to any one area, which includes
marketing.
FINANCIAL INFLUENCES
Evaluation
Evaluation is where financial influences play their greatest role. While all theatres
were careful to note that a large component of their evaluative process is artistic, all
86
participants except ACT cited that they do consider ticket sales at some point in their
play selection process.
None of the artistic staff that I spoke with considered the possible ticket sales of a
show to be a major factor in determining their season. Several cited that it is impossible
to predict what show is going to make an impact with your audience. Unger at Profile
Theatre stated that it is difficult to know what the audience is familiar. Nause at ART
similarly stated that people involved in the theatre underestimate how little attention the
general public pays to what is happening in the theatre community. Beattie at ACT
spoke of the hope of developing new databases that might better predict the success of
a show, but this would not change his programming of challenging works, only allow him
to better predict how monetarily successful they might be. Godman at Intiman says their
audience becomes irritated if the audience gets the sense that Intiman has selected a
play because it is popular and will sell a lot of tickets.
Despite the fact that ticket sales are a significant tool in evaluating a season’s
effectiveness, being able to predict how a show will sell is nearly impossible. As Beattie
cited, what works in one community might not work for another. Each production is
unique, and even within the same community, one production might connect more
strongly with the audience and sell significantly better than the same show at a different
theatre. Roscoe at Seattle Public considers programming plays even if they have been
done recently at larger theatres, because their theatre has a very different quality of
intimacy.
Because it is often difficult if not impossible to predict the success of a
production, ticket sales or other monetary measurements are not a significant factor in
87
the decision-making process. The only significant factor in season selection that is
based in possible monetary success is marketing, which is not solely a financial
influence. The lack of financial considerations in the process could be partly attributed to
the lack of significant involvement of the board and other administrative staff in the
process.
BALANCE
Bernstein (2007) was one of the few sources in the literature that directly
discusses the notion of balance:
Programming is only partially driven by the artists’ and the artistic decision
makers’ vision. Selecting programming is a complex activity, requiring that the
artistic director and the managing directors work together to solve a perpetual
problem: how to create a series of programs that has artistic merit, is congruent
with the organization’s mission, competencies, and constraints; and serves the
needs and interests of the community (p. 91).
This is consistent with the interviews I conducted, but it only describes a portion of the
balance involved in creating a season. Several of the artistic personnel interviewed,
including Nause at ART, Roscoe at Seattle Public, and Godman at Intiman, also cited a
desire for artistic balance. They want their seasons to address a balance of things
including themes, styles, messages, or perspectives. Often it was difficult for them to
define what balance was.
For all the participants, there was a financial balance, including big shows and
little shows in the right proportion to create a feasible budget. Some shows require a
88
larger budget, because of a larger cast or demands of certain production elements, and
those shows must be balanced with shows that have less budgetary requirements.
In some cases it was an ideological balance, between uplifting comedies or tragic
dramas. For others it was a balance of “flavors,” Nause used the metaphor of a meal—
wherein you would want various flavors and textures and different courses that make up
one meal or season. Godman at Intiman cited a desire to balance all of these factors.
Only Beattie at ACT theatre rejected the notion of balance in a season, defining it
as a formulaic mix of comedies, dramas, and one new work that leaves the audience
feeling “redeemed and uplifted” so they will want to come back next season. However,
he does say that he balances riskier new work with less risky work when programming.
Beattie makes the notion of a “balanced season” seem undesirable and not artistically
rewarding.
Balance is the language used to describe what I had termed a slot-based
philosophy. In my interviews, slots were spoken of in terms of time slots within the
season and operated much more broadly. The determination of what kinds of plays
work better in certain slots determines the order of the plays more than which plays are
produced. While an artistic director might notice that their list of plays to consider lacks
comedies, they discussed remedying that by citing a desire for balance rather than
trying to fill a particular slot. The guidelines in season programming are not distinct but
amorphous and ephemeral, described only in terms of how these changing factors and
artistic considerations must be ‘balanced.’
89
CONCLUSION
The factors involved in the selecting a season are complex and interconnected.
The mission statement serves as the foundation for the selection process, but after that
each theatre’s balance of factors is unique to the size of their organization and their
community. The various factors involved and the artistic directors, who are given a
sacred space to make their decisions, determine their varying weights. I have created a
flow chart representing the mission statement and the community context operating as
filters in play selection, because each of these factors are limiting factors (see chart on
next page).
Overall, my initial instincts that there was a tension between the financial side
and artistic side of the season planning process were not entirely accurate. There are
financial considerations, but they do not outweigh fulfilling the mission statement or
other artistic considerations. In the theatres I examined, the artistic staff is given their
“sacred space” to make their decisions, which puts them in control. While some of the
theatres were more risk-averse, this affected their selections only moderately.
90
Flow Chart of Factors
91
The mission, depending on its level of specificity, will guide which plays are not
appropriate for each theatre. Similarly, the community context of the organization serves
as a secondary, if not completely separate filter, because some theatres address the
scope of their plays within their mission statement. A smaller theatre like Profile or
Seattle Public does not have the space or the resources to consider a production that
would demand a large space, large cast, or a large amount of resources, so their
community context would serve as an additional filter in play selection. Once those
limiting factors have been addressed, the other factors, including diversity, developing
new work, marketing, or financial concerns, will be applied to the pool of plays already
limited by the two primary filters. Each of these secondary factors will vary in their
importance as determined by the artistic director.
My theory of a slot-based philosophy was only moderately employed. Identifying
time slots and what kinds of plays work well in particular time slots was the primary use
of slots. This was not a significant factor in the decision-making process.
It would be impossible from my research to create a guideline for how to program
a season. More research should be done to explore the connection between the
evaluation of a season’s success and the factors used to create that season.
Additionally, with more research into programming, theatres could be more aware of
recognizing their own process and modifying it based on strategies that have proved
successful in similar organizations. Sharing research about the decision-making
process could also make the process more time and cost efficient. I want to see our
theatres not only survive, but to flourish.
92
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT LETTER
Date Kimberly Colburn 367 N Polk Street, Eugene, OR, 97402 Dear ____________: You are invited to participate in a research project titled The Art of Artistic Direction conducted by Kimberly Colburn from the University of Oregon’s Arts and Administration program. The purpose of this study is to determine the factors involved in programming a theatre season. The season of plays that a theatre schedules has a large impact on determining what kind of audience it can attract, how economically successful an organization can be, and how the theatre is perceived artistically within the community. A significant gap in research exists in determining the process by which these theatre seasons are put together. This study aims to determine what factors are involved, and whether artistic directors view these factors as positive or negative. You were selected to participate in this study because of your position as ________ with ___________ and your experiences with and expertise pertinent to developing a theatre season. If you decide to take part in this research project, you will be asked to provide relevant organizational materials and participate in an in-person interview, lasting approximately ninety minutes, between February and April of 2007. If you wish, interview questions will be provided beforehand for your consideration. It may be advisable to obtain permission from your institution and/or your supervisor to participate in this interview to avoid potential social or economic risks related to speaking as a representative of your institution. Interviews will take place at your organization, or at a more conveniently located site. Interviews will be scheduled at your convenience. In addition to taking handwritten notes, with your permission, I will use an audio tape recorder for transcription and validation purposes. You may also be asked to provide follow-up information through phone calls or email. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (619) 322-2030, or at [email protected], or Dr. Lori Hager at [email protected]. Any questions regarding your rights as a research participant should be directed to the Office of Human Subjects Compliance, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97402, (541) 346-2510. Thank you in advance for your interest and consideration. Sincerely, Kimberly Colburn
93
APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM
The Art of Artistic Direction Kimberly Colburn, Principal Researcher
University of Oregon Arts and Administration Program
You are invited to participate in a research project titled The Art of Artistic Direction conducted by Kimberly Colburn from the University of Oregon’s Arts and Administration program. The purpose of this study is to determine the factors involved in programming a theatre season. The season of plays that a theatre schedules has a large impact on determining what kind of audience it can attract, how economically successful an organization can be, and how the theatre is perceived artistically within the community. A significant gap in research exists in determining the process by which these theatre seasons are put together. This study aims to determine what factors are involved, and whether artistic directors view these factors as positive or negative. You were selected to participate in this study because of your position as _________ with ___________ and your experiences with and expertise pertinent to developing a theatre season. If you decide to take part in this research project, you will be asked to provide relevant organizational materials and participate in an in-person interview, lasting approximately ninety minutes, between February and April of 2007. If you wish, interview questions will be provided beforehand for your consideration. Interviews will take place at your organization, or at a more conveniently located site. Interviews will be scheduled at your convenience. In addition to taking handwritten notes, with your permission, I will use an audio tape recorder for transcription and validation purposes. You may also be asked to provide follow-up information through phone calls or email. There are minimal risks associated with participating in this study, such as displeasing that individual’s colleagues and supervisor(s). Any information that is obtained in connection with this study will be carefully and securely maintained. Your consent to participate in this interview, as indicated below, demonstrates your willingness to have your name used in any resulting documents and publications and to relinquish confidentiality. It may be advisable to obtain permission from your institution and/or your supervisor to participate in this interview to avoid potential social or economic risks related to speaking as a representative of your institution. Your participation is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without penalty. I anticipate that the results of this research project will be of value to the cultural sector as a whole, however, I cannot guarantee that you personally will receive any benefits from this research. This research project is for obtaining a graduate degree. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (619) 322-2030, or at [email protected], or Dr. Lori Hager at [email protected]. Any questions
94
regarding your rights as a research participant should be directed to the Office of Human Subjects Compliance, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97402, (541) 346-2510. Please read and initial each of the following statements to indicate your consent: _____ I consent to the use of audiotapes and note taking during my interview _____ I consent to my identification as a participant in this study. _____ I consent to the potential use of quotations from the interview. _____ I consent to the use of information I provide regarding the organization with which I am associated. _____ I wish to have the opportunity to review and possibly revise my comments and the information that I provide prior to these data appearing in the final version of any publications that may result from this study. _____ I wish to maintain my confidentiality in this study through the use of a pseudonym. Your signature indicates that you have read and understand the information provided above, that you willingly agree to participate, that you may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty, that you have received a copy of this form, and that you are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies. This is your copy of this letter to keep. Print Name:________________________________________________________ Signature:______________________________________________Date:_______ Thank you for your interest and participation in this study. Sincerely, Kimberly Colburn (619) 322-2030 or [email protected]
95
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL/QUESTIONS
Date: Location: Name: Job title/description: Consent: ____Oral ____Written (form) ____Audio recording ____ OK to quote Mission: Notes: Interview Questions: 1. Describe the process your theatre takes in season planning. 1a. Who is involved in deciding what plays will be considered for production? 1b. How much involvement does the board play in approving the proposal for the next season? 2. Are you directly involved in the production of plays during the season (i.e. directing, acting)? 2a. Do you decide which play you are involved in (or how)? 3. Does your mission statement restrict the types of plays that can be considered? 4. Are marketing factors involved in play selection? 5. Is the budget per show divided (fairly) evenly between shows? 6. Do you consider the gender or ethnicity of the playwrights you select? 6a. Do you view considerations of ethnicity/gender as important? 7. Are you more likely to include plays that have proven successful in other places? 8. Is the availability of rights a consideration? 8a. Cost of rights? 9. Do you include new works? 9a. Do you make any efforts to include regional new works? 10. Does the available talent pool of actors/directors/designers affect the plays that you will consider? 11. How do you evaluate if a season was effective? 11a. Monetarily? Artistically? 12. Do you ever consult reference materials in programming a season? Reports, journal articles, books? 13. What is the most difficult thing about programming a season?
96
APPENDIX D: SIMPLIFIED CHART OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES
97
WORKS CITED
Actor’s Equity Association. (2005). Agreement and rules governing employment in resident theatres. Retrieved 6/1/07 from http://www.lort.org/2005-08LORT-AEACBA.pdf
Akbar, Arifa. (2004, August 31). Nunn plans ‘Porgy and Bess’ created with new black
talent. [Electronic version]. The Independent. American Assembly. (2000). The arts and the public purpose. In The politics of culture:
Policy perspectives for individuals, institutions, and communities. Bradford, G., Gary, M., & Wallach, G. (Eds). New York: The New Press.
Americans for the Arts Annual Convention (2003). Breakfast roundtable notes. Cultural
citizens: Emerging arts leadership pre-conference. Retrieved 3/4/07 from http://www.artsusa.org/pdf/events/2003/convention/el_breakfast_roundtables.pdf.
Appel, L. (2004). How does she do it: Libby Appel talks about how she plans a season.
OSF Prologue. Retrieved 1/30/06 from http://www.osfashland.org/news/articles.aspx.
Abarbanel, Jonathan (2007, February 16) Chicagoans in New York. Behind the Curtain
(PerformInk online). Retrieved 2/25/07 from: http://www.performink.com/Archives/curtain/2007/2-16Curtain.htm
Arian, E. (1992). The unfulfilled promise of public arts subsidy in a multicultural society.
In Culture and democracy (pp. 59-66). Buchwalter, A. (Ed). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Arts Journal Forum. (2005). Is there a better case to be made for the arts? A
collaborative weblog, hosted March 7–11, 2005. Retrieved 1/15/06 from http://www.artsjournal.com/muse/
Assassi, I. (2005). The influence of theatres’ programming strategy on their relations
with artistic production companies: An analysis based on the French experience. Paper presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Arts and Cultural Management. Retrieved online 9/25/05 from http://www.hec.ca/aimac2005/pdf_text/assassi_isabelle.pdf.
Barber, B. (1997). Serving democracy by serving the arts and humanities. Paper
presented at Creative America, a report for the Committee on the Arts and Humanities.
Beattie, K. Personal interview. May 1, 2007.
98
Berson, M. (2006, March 19). Provocative "Pillowman" heads up daring new ACT season. Seattle Times. Retrieved 5/10/07 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theaterarts/2002872086_act19.html.
Bernstein, J. (2007). Arts marketing insights: The dynamics of building and retaining
performing arts audiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bloom, D. (1996). Selecting the season: How do they do it? Stage of the Art 8 (3), 12-
14. Booth, S. (2006). Selecting the Season. Atlanta ShowGuide. Podcast 1/3/2006 retrieved
4/1/2007 from http://www.atlantaperforms.com/podcast. Brantley, B. (2005, April 11). A storytelling instinct revels in horror's fun. [Electronic
version] New York Times. Retrieved 3/3/07 from http://theater2.nytimes.com/2005/04/11/theater/reviews/11pill.html
Cattaneo, A. (1997). Dramaturgy: An overview. In Jonas, S., Proehl, G., and Lupu, M.
(Eds.), Dramaturgy in American theatre: A source book. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Colbert, F. (2000). Marketing culture and the arts, second edition. Quebec, Canada:
Chair in Arts Management. Cornwell, T. (1990). Democracy and the arts: The role of participation. In The future of
the arts: Public policy and arts research. Pankratz, D. & Morris, V. (Eds). New York: Praeger.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dart, J. (2003). It’s pretty good…for a girl: Female playwrights and gender bias in
American theatre. Master’s Capstone, University of Oregon, Arts and Administration. Retrieved September 30, 2005 from: http//aad.uoregon.edu/icas/project_thesis_pdf/dart_j.pdf
Dewey, P. (2007, April 19). Governance and Strategic Planning. Presented at a
Performing Arts Administration lecture at the University of Oregon. Evans, Greg. (1997, January 29). On cultural power: The Wilson Brustein discussion.
[Electronic version]. Variety. Frohnmayer, J. (1993). Should the United States have a cultural policy? Paper
presented at Seventeenth Annual Giannella Memorial Lecture at Villanova University School of Law, March 1993. Villanova Law Review, 38.
99
Godman, K. Personal interview. March 28, 2007 Goldbard, A. (2001) Memory, money, and persistence: Theater of social change in
context. Theater 31(3), 127-137. Goldberger, Paul. (1997, January 22) From page to stage: Race and the theatre.
[Electronic version] New York Times. Hayes, D. & Slater, A. (2002). ‘Rethinking the missionary position’—the quest for
sustainable audience development strategies. Managing Leisure 7(1), 1-17. Heilburn, J. & Gray, C. (1993). The economics of art and culture: An American
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hirsch, M. (2005). Selecting the Season. Atlanta ShowGuide. Podcast 12/22/2005
retrieved 4/1/2007 from http://www.atlantaperforms.com/podcast. Hodsoll, F. (2002). Cultural transactions. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and
Society. 32(2), 104-124. Jefferson, Margo. (1997, February 4). Oratory vs. really talking about culture. [Electronic
version]. New York Times. Kaiser, M. (2002). How to save the performing arts. [Electronic version] Washington
Post, December 29, 2002, p. B07. Retrieved 3/4/07 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Kammen, M. (2000). Culture and the state in America. In The politics of culture: Policy
perspectives for individuals, institutions, and communities. Bradford, G., Gary, M., & Wallach, G. (Eds). New York: The New Press.
Kentucky Educational Television. (2006) A Talk with the Playwright: Lynn Nottage.
Retrieved 11/19/06 from: http://www.ket.org/americanshorts/poof/nottage.htm Key, T. (2005). Selecting the Season. Atlanta ShowGuide. Podcast 10/18/2055
retrieved 4/1/2007 from http://www.atlantaperforms.com/podcast. Kosidowski, P. (2003). Thinking through the audience. Theatre topics. 13(1), 83-86. Kotler, P. & Scheff, J. (1997). Standing Room Only: Strategies for Marketing the
Performing Arts. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Langley, S. (1990). Theatre management and production in America. New York: Drama
Book Publishers.
100
Lampley, Oni Faida. (2003). National diversity forum: 2003 opinion pieces. Non-Traditional Casting Project. Retrieved 2/25/07 from http://www.ntcp.org/ NationalDiversityForum/OpinionPieces/OniFaidaLampley.htm
Leenhardt, J. (1978). The sociological approach. In Havet, J. (Ed.), Main trends of
research in the social and human sciences, part two/volume one (pp. 595-605). Paris: Mouton Publishers.
Lewis, J. (2000). Designing a cultural policy. In The politics of culture: Policy
perspectives for individuals, institutions, and communities (pp. 79-93). Bradford, G., Gary, M., & Wallach, G. (Eds). New York: The New Press.
Lipman, S. (1992). The state of national cultural policy. In Culture and democracy (pp.
47-57). Buchwalter, A. (Ed). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Longoria, A. (1992). The role of the artistic director in the history and development of
the Seattle repertory theatre. A dissertation presented to the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Longenbaugh, John. (2007, January 3). Played out. [Electronic version] Seattle weekly.
Retrieved 3/2/07 from http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-01-03/arts/played-out.php.
Lustig, Vera. (1996, January). Nice work: Lack of diversity in drama criticism. New
Statesman Society. Lyon, E. (1983). Stages of theatrical rehearsal. Journal of popular culture. 16(2), 75-89. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Meierhofer, J. (2006). Selecting the Season. Atlanta ShowGuide. Podcast 1/10/2006
retrieved 4/1/2007 from http://www.atlantaperforms.com/podcast. Monaghan, M. (2003). Economics. Theatre Topics. 13(1), 81. McCarthy, K. (2001). The performing arts: Trends and their implications. RAND
Research Brief. Retrieved 5/15/2007 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB2504/index1.html
Mulcahy, K. (2000). The government and cultural patronage: A comparative analysis of
cultural patronage in the United States, France, Norway, and Canada. In The public life of the arts in America (pp. 138-170). Cherbo, J. M., & Wyszomriski, M. J. (Eds.). New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Nause, A. Personal interview. March 12, 2007.
101
Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Publishers.
Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF). (March 11, 2005). Board Meeting Minutes.
Retrieved 4/1/2007 from www.osfashland.org/_dwn/about/minutes/031105.pdf. Palmer, T. Risky business. Theatre Topics. 13(1), 63-67. Pavis, P. (1993). Production and reception in the theatre. In Hilton, J. (Ed.), New
directions in theatre. (pp. 25-71). New York: Saint Martin’s Press. Pesner, Ben. (2005). Through the looking glass: Theatre facts 2004. American Theatre.
November, 2005. Potter, T. (1992). Sliding towards a diminished culture. In Culture and democracy (pp.
41-46). Buchwalter, A. (Ed). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Price, C. (1994). Many voices, many opportunities: Cultural pluralism and American arts
policy. New York, NY: American Council for the Arts. Quigley, M. (2005). The Mapplethorpe Censorship Controversy. Retrieved on 2/24/06
from http://www.publiceye.org/theocrat/Mapplethorpe_Chrono.html. RAND. (2004). Gifts of the muse: reframing the debate about the benefit of the arts
[summary]. Retrieved online 1/28/06 from www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG218.sum.pdf.
Rienzi, Greg. (2002). All's well' as theatre Hopkins begins its 81st season. [Electronic
version] The Gazette Online: the newspaper of Johns Hopkins University, 32 (8). Retrieved 3/2/07 from: http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2002/21oct02/21season.html.
Roscoe, C. Personal interview. February 12, 2007. Status of Women in Theatre. (2003). Panel discussion, January 28, 2003. Retrieved
3/4/07 from: http://www.nytheatre.com/nytheatre/voiceweb/v_nysca.htm Unger, J. Personal interview. February 26, 2007. Veinstein, A. (1978). The dramatic arts. In Havet, J. (Ed.), Main trends of research in the
social and human sciences, part two/volume one (pp. 803-810). Paris: Mouton Publishers.
Volz, J. (2004). How to run a theatre: A witty, practical and fun guide to arts
management. New York: Backstage Books.
102
Voss, Z. & Voss, G. (2000) Exploring the impact of organizational values and strategic orientation on performance in not-for-profit professional theatre. International Journal of Arts Management. 3(1), 62-76.
Walker, E. (1994). The dilemma of multiculturalism in the theatre. TDR. 38(3), 7-10. Web, Duncan. (2004). Running theatres: Best practices for leaders and managers.
Newy York: Allsworth Press. Wickstrom, M. (1999). Commodities, mimesis, and The Lion King: Retail theatre for the
1990s. Theatre Journal 51(3), 285-298. Wilson, A. (1996). The ground on which I stand. New York: Theatre Communications
Group. Whitehead, J. (2002). Art will out: Can we put the art back into our institutions?
American Theatre. October 2002, 31-36. Wyszomirski, M. (2000). Raison d’État, raisons des arts: Thinking about public
purposes. The public life of the arts in America. Cherbo, J. M., & Wyszomriski, M. J. (Eds.). New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Zappulla, E. (2005). 2005-2006 Season preview. American Theatre. October 2005, 43-
102.